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

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
Good to have clarity on that, I was not aware of that.

Regarding evaporation ponds that I mentioned earlier, I was just reading
the "tag:water=pond" page on the wiki[0].  It seems that evaporation ponds
should not be tagged natural=water, but basin=evaporation (unless it is a
salt evaporation pond).  Therefore, this feature [1] is tagged incorrectly
it seems.

I am probably getting beyond the scope of your proposal here, but it would
make sense to me that anytime there is a body of water on the surface of
the Earth, even if it is highly contaminated water, that it have the top
level tag of natural=water.  However, that it seems would go against a lot
of tagging practice.

Mike

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dpond
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4784244



>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220101/7eb02ce5/attachment.htm>