[Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 07:00:57 UTC 2020


Re: "I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate on the large..small
and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes and a farmer's stock
pond, where the `water=*` value would be uncontroversial."

water=canal is the consensus tag for the area of a canal. There was never a
standard way to tag this before, so I would strongly recommend adding this
tag for all canals when mapped as an area with natural=water. Similarly,
water=lock is uncontroversial and widely used.

While there is still some controversy about using water=river +
natural=water instead of waterway=riverbank for the area of a river, it is
uncontroversial that you should certainly add  water=river if you are using
natural=water in this case.

The same thing goes for reservoirs and basins: you can also use
landuse=basin or landuse=reservoir, but if you map them with natural=water
it is very helpful to use water=basin or water=reservoir

Those values account for most of the uses of water=*... except for
water=pond, which is where we started.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:05 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>    - origination:natural=beavers
>>
>> Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant
> sculpting force on the landscape.
>
> (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water
> control structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally)
>
> Very long story short, I think we might be able to worry a little less
>> about what the body of still water *is* and more about its other
>> properties that might be of interest. In programming languages this is
>> referred to as "duck typing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing>".
>>
>
> If ducks could type, I could easily imagine that a pond might be mapped
> and the tags entered by a duck typing. I think that the duck in question
> might be Atwood's Duck.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality#Related_principles_and_formulations
>
> And ... having seen this argument several times before, I basically avoid
> `water=*` when mapping. I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate
> on the large..small and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes
> and a farmer's stock pond, where the `water=*` value would be
> uncontroversial. `natural=water` renders, and I'll try to avoid taking a
> census of the angels dancing on that particular pinhead.
>
> This whole discussion reminds me of one time that someone who wasn't from
> around here (nor a native speaker) was insisting that anything that was
> called a 'creek' in English *must* be a tiny watercourse.  Not around here!
> The creek in question was, if memory serves, either the Schoharie Creek,
> shown in this picture:
> http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/images/schoharie_falls.jpg or
> else the West Canada Creek
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Canada_Creek#/media/File:Aug_2011_Ft_Noble_Mtn.JPG
> I'm comfortable with `waterway=river` on any waterway where I map the
> riverbank.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Re: is water=* tag needed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
>>>> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
>>>> providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
>>>> distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
>>>> database quality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We often do not know if it is natural or artificial.  Maybe it's a
>>> natural
>>> depression in the ground that fills with water.  Maybe it was created
>>> by man as a water feature.  Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded.
>>> Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may
>>> have
>>> happened so long ago that there are no records.
>>>
>>> What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria
>>> for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a
>>> pond.  In principle, a suitably-qualified mapper could investigate
>>> those things on site.  We can accept using guesswork based on
>>> size pending fuller investigation. A lake/pond distinction is
>>> useful irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or entirely
>>> artificial.
>>>
>>> Determining if it's entirely natural, or deliberately man-made, or
>>> an unintended consequence of past human activity is harder.
>>> Possible for retention basins that are still in use.  Mostly
>>> possible for reservoirs, although some reservoirs are
>>> based around natural lakes.  But historical records are
>>> incomplete (and some mappers insist we should never
>>> ever make use of historical data to inform our mapping).
>>>
>>> Maybe we need an artificial=yes/no.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201113/bab13d79/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list