[OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>>  My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse"
>
>
> why would that be desirable? Basically landuse is a property of land,
> and generally it's not very clear how to apply (it depends on the
> scale, and our db doesn't have a scale). As opposed to this, mapping a
> reservoir or a basin as a feature is much clearer, you don't have to
> worry whether you include auxiliary stuff like the service road
> leading to the reservoir, or the non-water-storage but legally
> associated areas around it to the feature (you won't).

I don't really see this as a conflict.   We need to have two features
marked in the db.

One is the area of land in use for the reservoir, including the water,
the roads/buildings, and the associated protection area (where most
activities are prohibited, except possiby hiking).  This should be a
landuse= tag.  It does not denote water and should not render blue :-)

Then, there should be some kind of water tag that denotes the area that
contains water or normally contains water.

I don't see any reason why this can't be

  landuse=reservoir [entire parcel that has the reservoir on it, or the
  region that has "water supply area - no trespassing" signs, etc.]]

  water=reservoir [the water part]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160621/ec969fb2/attachment-0001.sig>