Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> writes: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis >> <tomasstrau...@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]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk