[Talk-us-massachusetts] landuse=reservoir_watershed

[Greg Troxel]

"Alan & Ruth Bragg" <alan.ruth.bragg at gmail.com> writes:

> I need some guidance on the landuse=reservoir_watershed tag.
>
> It's used 2,803 times Massachusetts, nowhere else in the world,does not
> render and there is no wiki page.
>
> I'm currently cleaning up Barre and the place is littered with 185 of them
> and most do not match the Mass GIS L3 overlay.
>
> Many of these polygons are separated by the width of a road causing a
> visual mess.

I am definitely conflicted on this.

The overall tagging for landuse/conservation has issuess in OSM.  It's
entirely reasonable to define tags when necessary and use them, even if
the standard render doesn't use them.  So if the data is ok and is
sensible, but the world hasn't caught up with the tag, then lack of
rendering and standard tags is absolutely not a good reason to delete
it.

We had a similar messy situation with landuse=conservation.  I think
this is an entirely sensible tag, to describe that the primary human
purpose of land is to maintain it in a mostly natural state for the
indefinite future.  But the people that control the render didn't like
this (which I view as arbitrary, but cartography is fundamentally a
judgement call).  I have left landuse=conservation, but added
leisure=nature_reserve if the public can walk on the land (which is a
separate issue from landuse=conservation, sensible, and happens to
render).

I am assmuing the notion is that the this is land owned by the water
authority that is typically posted somehow to prohibit uses that are
incompatible with the water supply (somewhere between no trespassing, no
vehicles, no swimming, no fishing, etc.).

I am not a fan of boundary=protected_area but it is the closest thing
that people seem to be using for things sort of like this.

However, it sounds like you have looked at these and they don't really
make sense.  If they are junky and don't line up with property lines,
and you think they don't line up with reality, then we are probably
better off without them.

Probably there is some massgis layer that has reservoir protection
zones.  That's tricky as there are things like 1000' setbacks, separate
from ownership, and I think we should at least for now only be mapping
the ownership/posting types.  (But don't let me stop you; that's a soft
opinion only.)


So, is the problem that the data is junky, or that the tag doesn't
render?  Or something else?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20170630/5fe92cb4/attachment.sig>