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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Thanks Mike, this is good feedback that I will need to weave in.

Regarding the specific point about tailings, I should point out (and
properly distinguish in the proposal) that there was a previously approved
proposal for tailings ponds to be tagged man_made=tailings_pond:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tailings_pond

Clearly these features should not be tagged as a regular lake or pond.


On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 5:56 PM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220101/62b6c22a/attachment-0001.htm>