Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
sent from a phone > On 12. Jun 2019, at 01:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Other features in the key natural are either land covers or land forms and > could be split into those 2 keys. that’s not completely accurate, there are also point features, e.g. natural=spring, natural=tree, ... which are neither Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
On 11/06/19 19:30, marc marc wrote: Le 11.06.19 à 11:14, Tomas Straupis a écrit : What do you think? I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench or landuse=stop on a parking lot. landuse should be what the place is for. reservoir is the function of the object, which is inscribed when a larger purpose (agriculture, energy production, flood management,...) Counter argument.. Reservoir is for the storage of water, thus a use of the land. It could be named 'water_storage' but the areas mapped would remain the same. Some reservoirs serve more than one end purpose e.g. flood management and water for human consumption. natural=water is not perfect (soe dislike natural for man-made feature) but at least it allows to split "there is water" with its function -- off topic The key natural is also disliked by me. Water is a land cover .. so could be tagged landcover=water. Other features in the key natural are either land covers or land forms and could be split into those 2 keys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
On 11/06/19 19:30, marc marc wrote: Le 11.06.19 à 11:14, Tomas Straupis a écrit : What do you think? I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench or landuse=stop on a parking lot. landuse should be what the place is for. reservoir is the function of the object, which is inscribed when a larger purpose (agriculture, energy production, flood management,...) Counter argument.. Reservoir is for the storage of water, thus a use of the land. It could be named 'water_storage' but the areas mapped would remain the same. Some reservoirs serve more than one end purpose e.g. flood management and water for human consumption. natural=water is not perfect (soe dislike natural for man-made feature) but at least it allows to split "there is water" with its function The key natural is also disliked by me. Water is a land cover .. so could be tagged landcover=water. Other features in the key natural are either land covers or land forms and could be split into those 2 keys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
I agree with Marcin preference for natural=water, water=reservoir, because it keeps landuse open for the actual use of the land that contains a reservoir. I dislike landuse-within-landuse. But I agree with Tomas that this preference does not make it a "better" option, and the wiki should not state that it is. Equal alternatives, each with pros and cons, and all may choose the one they think is best. I'm convinced that the balance will shift towards natural=reservoir, there is no need to try and force this. An editor can have its own preferences, if I don't agree I use another editor or just ignore it. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 11 jun. 2019 om 11:49 schreef Tomas Straupis : > > I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself > > it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench > > or landuse=stop on a parking lot. > > <...> > > There are a infinite number of arguments on both sides. Pandora box > was already opened and dual standard for water tagging already exists. > The fact is that landuse=reservoir was and is used on most > reservoirs so it cannot be flagged as "worse". > > The question is about treatment of these two tags in the wiki. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
> I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself > it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench > or landuse=stop on a parking lot. > <...> There are a infinite number of arguments on both sides. Pandora box was already opened and dual standard for water tagging already exists. The fact is that landuse=reservoir was and is used on most reservoirs so it cannot be flagged as "worse". The question is about treatment of these two tags in the wiki. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
Le 11.06.19 à 11:14, Tomas Straupis a écrit : >What do you think? I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench or landuse=stop on a parking lot. landuse should be what the place is for. reservoir is the function of the object, which is inscribed when a larger purpose (agriculture, energy production, flood management,...) natural=water is not perfect (soe dislike natural for man-made feature) but at least it allows to split "there is water" with its function ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir
Hello
landuse=reservoir is from original OpenStreetMap water tagging scheme.
water=reservoir is the newer one ("all blue is natural=water") with
no advantages over previous one. Original (landuse=reservoir) is still
more prominent even with Mapbox/iD's aggressive push for the later
one.
Now OSM wiki for some reason has a note on landuse=reservoir that
"better alternatives exist". Which in my opinion has no base. In my
opinion both reservoir pages must have similar treatment:
1. no "better" (especially if newer and less popular is interpreted
as "better")
2. "alternative" should be mention on both or none of the pages.
What do you think?
--
Tomas
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
