[Tagging] Quarry lakes

[Warin]

Using life cycle prefixes establishes what was there before .. and that 
still may be evident.

So landuse=quarry becomes abandoned:landuse=quarry. Leaving 
landuse=quarry means it is still used as a quarry, and if filled with 
water then that is not usual.

If the water body is large and not formed by a dam then water=lake would 
be reasonable to me. How is a lake different from these water bodies? 
Simply being 'man made' is not enough. Some lakes exist in old volcanoes 
and would have similar features to old quarry lake - steep sides and a 
flatish bottom.

On 25/12/20 8:20 am, Clifford Snow wrote:
> A few years back I went kayaking in a series of water bodies created 
> out of old iron ore mine pits [1,2] in northern Minnesota. These open 
> pit mines were abandoned over 30 years ago. These were some of the 
> clearest lakes I've ever seen. For those not familiar with Minnesota, 
> it's state motto is "Land of 10,000 Lakes" which seems ironic when 
> they felt the need to create a few more.
>
> I'd be in favor of creating a tag that describes that they were formed 
> by mining. I'd like to see tags that add to the existing natural=water 
> and water=lake/pond tags. That way we can incrementally improve the 
> information without having to change any existing water body.
>
>
>
> [1] openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4896/-94.0006 
> <http://openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4896/-94.0006>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyuna_Country_State_Recreation_Area
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:56 AM António Madeira 
> <antoniomadeira at gmx.com <mailto:antoniomadeira at gmx.com>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> -- 
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us>
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201226/6d0a76a2/attachment.htm>