Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?

[fly]

Am 08.06.2013 23:07, schrieb Greg Troxel:
 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
 
 But how to we proceed ?

 If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do
 we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them?

 Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either
 on the same object or within one.
 
 Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
 
   Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
   be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir
   and protection zones.   (I have an attitude that landuse will often
   align with parcel boundaries.)

There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs
would be class eleven or 15.

   Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing.
 
   Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing.  That tag
   denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is
   object tagging, not landuse tagging.
 
 
 Does this make anyone significantly unhappy?

I was looking for a more tight definition of landuse=reservoir which
would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use
is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a
tool shed.

cu
fly

---
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Photo links in OSM

[Bryce Nesbitt]

I'm interested in revisiting the issue of attaching links to photographs in
OSM via tag.

There's an ancient stale proposal at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Image
But no hint of why the proposal was abandoned, or any of the points of
debate.
There seems to be little push demand based for photos on taginfo:

-
photo=(5)
image:flickr=(3)
flickr=(18)
image=(332)
wikipedia:image=(12)
wetap:photo=(108)
source:image=Yahoo (200) (useless)
FG:photo=(529) (useless)

Open Street View and its mailing list kind of kick around:
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.photos
-

I contributed the 108 wetap:photo nodes. roughly 25% of the total images
links in OSM.  You can view these as pink dots at http://www.wetap.org ).

The downside issues seem similar to the website= tag, in that it could
attract spam or inappropriate links.
The upside is that it can make for richer mapping.  As URL links there is
no server storage cost to the OSM project.
Where do photo links stand?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging