[Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 17:15:33 UTC 2020


Re: "what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?"

Most of those are landuse=basin (or water=basin + natural=water if you
prefer the newer tagging scheme), and while they are not exactly for
"storing water", they might be for "preventing flooding", or "temporarily
holding excess water" or "permanently holding waste water."

I believe a landuse=reservoir or water=reservoid feature is going to
presumed to have a dam at one end which was built to keep in the water.

Flooded quarries and old mines are an interesting exception. I suppose a
old pit mine is not exactly a reservoir in the common understanding,
because the hole in the ground was built to remove minerals, and usually it
only fills up with water after the mining activity is finished and pumps to
extract water are turned off; there is usually no dam (though sometimes a
dam might be built later to prevent flooding).

It's also not exactly a landuse=basin because  the hole in the ground was
not made to hold water.

Perhaps water=quarry or something like that would be helpful, when it's
obvious that the water feature is an abandoned open pit mine or quarry.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:
>
>> Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
>> body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
>> as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement.
>>
>> The current problem with water=pond is that many are completely natural
>> features, but almost all other values of water=* are clearly natural (or
>> semi-natural), or clearly artificial, so water=pond is losing this
>> information which otherwise should be conveyed by the key water=*.
>>
>
>
> water=lake does not tell you about it being "natural" or not either. I am
> not sure what the term "natural" means. If a woman makes a depression in
> the terrain, and it automatically fills up with (surface or ground) water
> because of the geological conditions, is this "natural" or not? What about
> a woman sealing the terrain and conducting water to a place where there
> wasn't a water body before?
>
> This is a flooded open pit mine, is it "natural" or not, and if not, what
> would be the osm tag for it? water=lake, natural=no?
> https://www.lmbv.de/files/LMBV/Fotos/Nachrichten/Archivierte%20Nachrichtenfotos/LMBV_1616.jpg
>
> What about a lake without water (drained)? Is "lake" a term that can only
> be used for water bodies, or are dry lakes ok? Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/41.9975/13.5625 (everything
> "yellow" is a lake / former lake (actually third largest lake in Italy):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucine_Lake
>
>
>> - water=fountain
>> - water=fishpond
>>
>
>
> -1 to "fishpond". It is not defined in the wiki, and is discouraged as
> likely a mistake: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water (and I
> agree it is not good). You can have fish in many kinds of water bodies, I
> just recently started to add fish=yes to fountains when there are fish
> inside.
>
>
>>
>> And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A reservoir
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir> or an artificial lake is used
>> to store water. )
>>
>
>
> what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201112/fe08ad9e/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list