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

[Peter Elderson]

I get that, and I appreciate the effort. At the same time, I'm afraid in
Nederland it will not make much difference. Water bodies are extremely
variable here, in function, provenance, appearance and vegetation, and
often have mixed uses. In many cases, none of the descriptions/distinctions
fully apply. In other cases, all descriptions/distinctions partly apply.
The language doesn't help, we have a zillion terms for bodies of water
(try: "Boezem", "Ven", "Plas", "Bosvijver", and the diminutive variants:
Vennetje, Plasje, Meertje, Vijvertje), and very little, if any, agreement
on surveyable differences.

Peter Elderson


Op za 1 jan. 2022 om 21:55 schreef Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonewolf at gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 3:10 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks good, but isn't this re-proposing already approved tagging?
>>
>> Peter Elderson
>>
>
> It is doing two things:
>
> 1. Providing significantly expanded, detailed definitions that better help
> mappers make distinctions between these types of water bodies.  The
> definitions offered by the original water details proposal [1] were only
> cursory in nature.  For example, it defined pond as "usually smaller than a
> lake" which while true, isn't really sufficient for a mapper wishing to
> better understand the distinction.
> 2. Affirming the deprecation of landuse=reservoir in that same proposal,
> which has been questioned by some users due to the specific language and
> word choices that were used in that proposal to describe the deprecation.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220101/7e4bd711/attachment.htm>