[Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Brian,

In current practice the areas of rivers (whether waterway=riverbank or
water=river) are not tagged with a name=* tag, that goes on the linear
waterway=river feature. The same is true for canals.

This makes sense because the name belongs to the linear watercourse, and
adding it to the area would duplicate the name.

— Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:50 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Great discussion, here and in the 2017 thread.  Participation in the
> tagging list is certainly educational.
>
> water=stream_pool suffers from a few problems, and its use seems far from
> a settled question.  (None of this is meant as criticism, as I understand
> all too well the hard work involved in developing proposals and good wiki
> documentation).
>
> In the three years since that discussion, water=stream_pool has achieved
> just 425 usages.  I assume that the biggest reason for this is that it's
> only documented as an entry in the table for the wiki page for Key=water.
> Notably absent is any mention of stream pools (or for that matter, plunge
> pools) from either of the two main wiki pages for river documentation
> (water=river vs waterway=riverbank).  This begs the question of how
> water=stream_pool should interlace with river polygons for mapping.
>
> Stream/plunge pools are part of a river or stream (I assert this based on
> Wikipedia's definition).  Logically, one might think "chop up the river
> polygon, and tag the stream pool portion as a stream pool".  This approach
> has a few problems:
>
> 1. If the river area is tagged with the water=river scheme, the area of
> the stream pool is no longer tagged as a river (because water=stream_pool
> conflicts with water=river).  This is wrong because the stream/plunge pool
> is indeed part of the river.  You could use the waterway=riverbank scheme,
> but now you're blending the two types of river tagging.  Yuck.
> 2. If the stream pool has a name, that portion of the river loses the name
> of the river, as the polygon can only have one name= tag.  The
> waterway=river way of course would still carry the name, so you do still
> maintain continuity.  But you lose concepts like "the total surface area of
> the river".
>
> Alternately, you could overlap the pool area over the river polygon, but
> then you're double-tagging the water area which seems like poor practice,
> and certainly JOSM would give you a warning for overlapping water features.
>
> It seems to me that river=stream_pool would have been the more sensible
> tagging within the natural=water+water=river scheme, as it further
> describes that portion of the river.
>
> The low usage and structural problems associated with stream pool tagging
> suggest that this is not a ready-for-prime-time tagging scheme, and
> deserves a proposal - not just a mailing list discussion - to sort out
> fundamentally unanswered questions about how to tag a river with both named
> and unnamed stream pools, particularly with regard to how the polygons are
> divided and/or overlapped.  One might also argue that a stream pool should
> simply be mapped as a node, and if it's too big for a node, then perhaps
> it's more properly tagged as a pond or lake.  Unanswered questions.
>
> Stream and plunge pools are a part of rivers (per WP definition), and I
> don't intend to address river tagging as part of the reservoir/lake/pond
> proposal[1].  Therefore, what makes the most sense is to simply scrub
> mention of pools and rivers from the proposal and leave it squarely focused
> on reservoirs, lakes, and ponds.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:49 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Back in 2017 this was discussed on the list
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031595.html and
>> the outcome of that was I added water=stream_pool to the wiki at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water#Natural_features. Is there
>> any reason to change this now? I think continuing to tag these as
>> natural=water + water=stream_pool is best as currently documented and in
>> use.
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 05:13, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion on the current reservoir proposal[1] (which seeks to define
>>> the distinction between reservoirs, lakes, and ponds) has brought up the
>>> question of stream/plunge pools[2,3], and how they fit into the lake/pond
>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> I've come up with the following text:
>>>
>>> "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool,
>>> which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the
>>> waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually)
>>> pond if they are named or significant in size, or else they can be simply
>>> conflated with the river."
>>>
>>> Is this distinction satisfactory?  How are folks tagging these features?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_pool
>>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201222/a9b776e5/attachment.htm>