[Tagging] RFC #2: Lake, pond, and reservoir proposal

[Peter Elderson]

Looks good, but isn't this re-proposing already approved tagging?

Peter Elderson


Op za 1 jan. 2022 om 20:51 schreef Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonewolf at gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 2:04 PM Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a new year and only one talk entry as far as I know since you
>> reopened this proposal.
>>
>> Like Imagico the lake/pond (and river/creek) tagging has never made sense
>> to me. Imagico has other issues with lake/pond, but I'd like to see the
>> tagging dropped. Because this is a spatial database the surface area of a
>> water body can easily be calculated. If anywhere has a lake/pond definition
>> based on surface size then they can easily quantify the waterbody. Since
>> I've never seen such a definition I'd recommend dropping the tag
>> altogether. However, I think lake/pond should be outside of the scope of
>> the proposal.
>>
>
> Thanks for the note.  I had intended to launch a vote last week, but the
> holidays this year had me busier than expected.  So I'll give it at least a
> few more days to make sure that discussion is exhausted.
>
> The question of removing the distinction between lake and pond was
> suggested [1] by Jeisenbe in Nov 2020.  This was actually my preference in
> that thread as well, as it would simplify the tagging of still water bodies
> by not requiring mappers to adjudicate the difference between lake and pond
> for edge cases.  However, in that thread, there was clear community support
> for keeping both water=lake and water=pond.  Given that there are 800K
> usages of water=lake and 1.4 million usages of water=pond, these tags
> simply aren't going away any time soon.
>
> On the references list and discussion page of the proposal page [2] is a
> quite long history of the discussions that have shaped the ultimate
> direction of this proposal.  In short, in order to properly define
> "reservoir", it was necessary to define "lake" and draw a clear distinction
> between two types of water bodies.  Given the obvious overlap between lake
> and pond, defining lake necessarily meant formalizing the distinction
> between each of these three tag values - reservoir, lake, and pond, with
> the goal to capture and document as best as possible the actual, real-world
> usage of these three tags.  With 2.7 million usages, we are certainly not
> going to be redefining anything.  This means we end up with definitions
> that do necessarily leave gray areas where mappers must make a "best
> effort" attempt to apply the tagging that best fits, but water tagging is
> hardly the only tagging that has a fuzzy boundary between values.
>
> While my original intent was a narrow-scoped and simple deprecation of
> landuse=reservoir, the need to also provide a formal definition for a
> reservoir to apply the new tagging is the reason why lake, pond, and
> reservoir definitions couldn't be reasonably separated in the proposal.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056183.html
>
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220101/c24481a5/attachment.htm>