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

[Mike Thompson]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for putting this together.  Further clarifying tagging is almost
always a good thing!  Here are a few thoughts.

Regarding "A *reservoir* is an artificially-created or enlarged body of
water created using a dam to store water for human use" - I don't think the
*water* in a reservoir is necessarily always for "human use", for example
the reservoir may hold sewage (as is alluded to elsewhere in the proposal),
or mine tailings.  Also, what might technically be called reservoirs are
used to evaporate the water from mineral content (e.g. salt, potash), and
in these cases the water isn't intended for human use (since the point is
to allow it to evaporate).  Another case is where the water may have been
intended for human use at some point, but now the operation is abandoned,
but the body of water remains, which I would think should still be tagged
as water=reservoir.  We might be able to say that the overall reservoir
serves, or was intended to serve, a human purpose, and perhaps this is what
was meant, but it might be good to clarify (might indirectly serve humans,
e.g. water for livestock, which in turn provide food to humans).

Regarding ponds "Are not a reservoir" - Many bodies of water that I would
consider to be "ponds" are created by a human constructed dam (albeit very
simple earthen ones).  Perhaps we could say "ponds, even if otherwise
meeting the definition of a reservoir, should not be tagged as such", if
this is what was intended? Or would you tag such "ponds" as reservoirs?  I
am good with it either way, I just think we should be precise and clear as
possible.

"Hydroelectricity" -  Might want to clarify that in a pump storage facility
both the upper and lower reservoirs should be tagged as water=reservoir.

"Hydroelectricity" (2) - Might want to clarify that not all hydro plants
are necessarily associated with a reservoir.  Water may simply be diverted
into the penstocks from a point upstream.

Mike


On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 2:40 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220101/980ca922/attachment.htm>