[Tagging] Quarry lakes

[António Madeira]

If it's not a lake, in the sense that it's not natural, why use
water=lake at all?
And if it's a small area, say with a radius of 30 meters, would that be
a lake=quarry or a pond=quarry?
I would say that 90% of the times you can easily spot a body of water in
an old quarry from its surroundings. In the few cases that you can not
spot that from aerial images (mostly because they have decades or even
centuries old), you'll not be able to say if it's a lake or a pond or
the spot was already adopted by the locals as a lake or a pond, with a
proper name. So I would definitely go with a new tag.

Às 15:24 de 24/12/2020, Shawn K. Quinn escreveu:
> On 12/24/20 11:22, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>> A commenter on the reservoir proposal[1] pointed out the existence of
>> quarry lakes[2], which is a lake that is formed after a quarry has been
>> dug after a mining operation.  It was suggested that such bodies of
>> water should be tagged separately from other lakes with a tag such as
>> water=quarry.
> [...]
>
>> Should quarry lakes be tagged as a subset of lake, something like
>> water=lake + lake=quarry?
> Yes, this is how I personally would prefer to tag these.
> water=quarry_lake smells too much like the disaster that is
> amenity=ice_cream.
>