[Tagging] Tagging becoming more mature

2020-11-11 Thread stevea
What I've said here (about ponds) is something I think a lot of us have long 
recognized:  syntactic design of the sort that Joseph originally expressed 
concern about, where maybe we deprecate a tag, somebody disagrees, somebody 
else proposes differences, yet somebody else says "the subject is richer than 
that and deserves a full design..." is hard work.

There is a fair bit of tagging in OSM which might be described as "poor in 
hindsight" that works (and in some cases worked) OK for a while, but when 
brought into the larger world, begins to crack around its edges.  Some of this 
is due to linguistic differences around the world (e.g. leisure=park 
conflicting with the use of "park" in US English), some of this is due to hasty 
and poor syntactic design of the tag in the first place.  Some of this is due 
to reasons I'm not mentioning, as maybe we don't even (yet) fully understand 
why some of what we do might not be quite good enough to grow into our future.

While I'm not proposing any specific fixes to these longer-term challenges to 
OSM, I am saying that good syntactic design (and when appropriate, formal 
proposals to implement them) is an important element to minimizing the risks of 
how we've been doing this during our first couple of decades.  As OSM grows 
from adolescence into adulthood, (16 years and growing!) I believe we can keep 
our "plastic tagging where we can coin a new key" so it remains intact, as such 
free-form tagging is an important flexibility built into the project.  However, 
as we mature, become more worldwide (linguistically diverse, accommodating 
similar-yet-different aspects of many things, both in slight naming differences 
and slight actual differences...) we must consider more mature methods to 
implement well-designed aspects like sound, future-proof tags.  This includes 
both improvements to existing tags as well as new tags.

I love the spirited discussions that happen here and other places in OSM where 
a variety of voices come together to discuss new ideas, new tags and new ways 
to map:  may this wonderful spirit live on forever in our project.  Yet, we can 
also simultaneously recognize that there are "grown-up" methods to designing 
"industrial strength, world-ready" aspects to the project that will last and 
last far into our future.  Let's find ways to keep both going strong, whether 
it's moving more to formal proposals (or not), other more formal methods (or 
not) and keeping great, inclusive, respectful dialog alive as we do so.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread stevea
If we're going to do "this:"
> So perhaps we could create a new tag water=natural_pond for small, natural or 
> semi-natural lakes which are currently tagged as water=pond, and 
> water=artificial_pond or water=man_made_pond for the majority of water=pond 
> features which are clearly not natural, such as ponds in gardens.

it seems we should ponder (sorry, couldn't resist) the myriad possibilities for 
ponds both artificial AND natural and make a formal proposal that "covers all 
cases," at least as best we can in a formal proposal.  This would clarify 
(sorry, couldn't resist) what they're all "used for," as in settling in the 
case of a wastewater treatment plant, decorative as in somebody's backyard 
garden, natural, as in "shallow, nature-created, not-deep-enough to be called 
lake..." and so on.  Don't forget to consider (and document) potential overlap 
with things like leisure=swimming_pool and possibly others.

We might get a good start on doing this in a talk page, but I think it would 
greatly benefit from the thought that goes into a formal proposal:  worldwide 
consideration of the semantic space being described, rather clear syntax and 
namespaces described, how to decide one from the other, linguistic differences 
(as Joseph mentioned there can be a flattening in particular languages that 
might deserve extra clarity), how to migrate from existing tagging to the 
proposed tagging, and all the rest that formal proposals treat (what wiki need 
to update, et cetera).

I admire Joseph's "tossing here" what he wrote, as it gets things started, but 
I believe the subject is much richer than this.

It would also focus efforts by those who care and in as much detail and in one 
place as such a specific topic deserves.  While I don't write this to 
discourage posts to this list (I don't, as this list is a valuable place to 
discuss), I have also noticed a trend towards formal proposals.  "Ponds" seems 
like an excellent candidate for one.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement.

I can see the logic behind that, if a reservoir is thought to be larger and
must have a dam on one side, and a basin is artificially graded. A small
koi pond or decorative pool isn't exactly the same.

The current problem with water=pond is that many are completely natural
features, but almost all other values of water=* are clearly natural (or
semi-natural), or clearly artificial, so water=pond is losing this
information which otherwise should be conveyed by the key water=*. Since it
is unlikely that we could check 1 million water=pond features quickly, it's
not reasonable to redefine the meaning of this tag, but we can create a new
tag or several replacement tags which are more specific, and encourage use
of those instead.

But we need to have a clear description which will translate into other
languages and cultures. For example, in Papua Indonesia, most Trans-New
Guinea languages use 1 word for all types of "water", including rivers,
streams, lakes, and the sea, so they won't see a difference between a
"lake" and a "pond" unless you clearly describe it.

There are already several other more specific tags for small artificial
water bodies, in use:
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=water#values)
- water=reflecting_pool - "A reflecting pool: a water feature found in
gardens, parks, and at memorial sites. It usually consists of a shallow
pool of water, undisturbed by fountain jets, for a calm reflective surface."
- water=moat - A deep, wide defensive ditch, normally filled with water,
surrounding a fortified habitation.
- water=wastewater - A clarifier/settling basin of a wastewater treatment
plant.
- water=fountain
- water=fishpond

And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A reservoir
 or an artificial lake is used to
store water. ) and water=basin (An area of land artificially graded to hold
water.)

So perhaps we could create a new tag water=natural_pond for small, natural
or semi-natural lakes which are currently tagged as water=pond, and
water=artificial_pond or water=man_made_pond for the majority of water=pond
features which are clearly not natural, such as ponds in gardens.

-- Joseph Eisenberg


On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:59 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
>
> > I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using
water=lake for
> > natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or water=basin
(or
> > landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the artificial ones.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

2020-11-11 Thread Lukas Richert
If it's unclear I would just leave electricity:grid untagged as there's 
no way to know if it's yes or no (another advantage of the namespace 
tagging). In some areas, I think one could relatively safely assume that 
if all other houses are connected to the grid, that one likely is too. 
However,  Tagging the presence of a generator is definitely easier to 
see and would be more important for firefighters to know (islanding).


Mostly I would probably say that the vast majority of private houses 
probably don't need to be tagged in this detail and it definitely is 
they type of information I've seen advertised at hotels and camp sites 
where one wouldn't have to get all creepy to figure it out.


Also, if I understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_inverter 
correctly, all of the different inverter types you mentioned are, one 
way or another, connected to the grid. That might be another level of 
detail one wants to map, but doesn't need to be worked into 
electrical:grid I think? (I don't own either solar panels or a house 
that they could go on though, so I'm not completely informed on this topic!)


Luke


On 12.11.20 01:59, stevea wrote:

That IS what I mean.  However, STILL left unsaid is that short of ringing the doorbell 
and asking the home / business owner "are your solar panels grid-tied, battery-feed, 
directly converted to an inverter...?" you don't really know.

How will you tag those buildings?  (I feel a nose sniffing up my, um, house).  
Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy - snoopy.

SteveA


On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:

If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses that 
I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific reason why I think 
namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house would then be tagged with:

building=house
electricity=yes
electricity:generator=yes
electricity:grid=yes
electricity:generator:origin=solar
electricity:access=no

By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely used. 
In contrast, it would also be possible to tag electricity:generator=backup if 
the generator is only on when the grid fails.

Is this what you meant by grid-tie?

Regards, Luke


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

2020-11-11 Thread stevea
That IS what I mean.  However, STILL left unsaid is that short of ringing the 
doorbell and asking the home / business owner "are your solar panels grid-tied, 
battery-feed, directly converted to an inverter...?" you don't really know.

How will you tag those buildings?  (I feel a nose sniffing up my, um, house).  
Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy - snoopy.

SteveA

> On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:
> 
> If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses 
> that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific reason why I 
> think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house would then be tagged 
> with:
> 
> building=house
> electricity=yes
> electricity:generator=yes
> electricity:grid=yes
> electricity:generator:origin=solar
> electricity:access=no
> 
> By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
> specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely used. 
> In contrast, it would also be possible to tag electricity:generator=backup if 
> the generator is only on when the grid fails.
> 
> Is this what you meant by grid-tie?
> 
> Regards, Luke


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Tom Pfeifer

On 10.11.2020 10:56, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:


I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using water=lake 
for
natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or water=basin (or
landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the artificial ones.


I have a pond in my garden. I could, if I had a mind to and a decent
run up, jump over it. Not by any stretch of the imagination is it a
lake, reservoir or basin.


Joseph, the world is too diverse to press every object into a rigid category, and to find sharp 
definition boundaries. We need to let categories overlap.


Andy's garden pond is a good example. Everybody agrees that it's a pond, but when we have larger 
objects, the boundaries begin to blur, until we reach an object where everybody agrees that it is 
not a pond at all, it must be a lake.


Thus the objects will be mapped according to the subjective perception, but statistically objects 
like Andy's garden feature end on the pond side of the scale and the Werbellinsee on the lake side.


It's like trying to define a temperature value for 'hot' and 'cold':
For every human -10°C is cold and 45°C is hot, but at 20°C some go in a T-Shirt while others look 
for the woolen jumper.


Against deprecation of 'pond'.

tom

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

2020-11-11 Thread Lukas Richert
If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected 
houses that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific 
reason why I think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house 
would then be tagged with:


building =house 


electricity =yes
electricity:generator 
=yes

electricity:grid =yes
electricity:generator:origin 
=solar

electricity:access =no

By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely 
used. In contrast, it would also be possible to tag 
electricity:generator=backup if the generator is only on when the grid 
fails.


Is this what you meant by grid-tie?

Regards, Luke

On 11.11.20 21:49, stevea wrote:

I hope this doesn't throw too much additional confusion into electricity:grid, but in many parts of 
the world (including where I am, California) a frequent method for connecting solar panels to both 
one's house / commercial building and the grid is to do what is known as "grid-tie," 
sometimes called "net metering."

Grid-tie means that during sunshine, the solar panels generate and "spin the electric meter 
backwards" (creating a credit to the customer with the electric company) and at night, when electricity 
use / loads create a debit (by drawing power directly from the grid / electric company), the meter 
"spins forward" as usual during power use.  Of course, the idea is that generation and load balance 
each other out during a billing cycle and this "net metering" nets out to about zero, so the 
customer has a near-zero bill.

That is prevalent enough in the world that if OSM is going to design a tag for electricity:grid, it 
really needs a syntactic accommodation for "grid_tie" or "net_metering" (which 
are essentially the same).  Especially as I'm not sure if this would go under electricity or 
electricity:source (which introduce at the same time), I haven't any specific suggestion on a key, 
tag or namespace, but I think it important to mention what I haven't seen in this discussion.

SteveA
___
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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Subjective, or partially-subjective criteria for tagging are fine.  Several
links to science-based definitions by people that think about such things
were offered earlier in the thread, and they form a fine basis for
documenting what is a lake and what is a pond.  We don't all need to agree
on which tag applies to a specific body of water which might be tagged
either way -- that's a job for a mapper looking at the definition and
making the decision about which is the closest fit, and that's OK.



On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 5:17 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> There is no "it". Everybody has their own "it", and even that may be
> inconsistent.
> I am not opposed to ponds and lakes - I just don't see a common definition
> coming up without "generally" (but not always), "typically"(but may be
> different), "usually"(except where it's not), "in most countries" (but not
> everywhere) etc etc.
>
> I don't think most bodies of water can be tagged as pond or lake by any
> common standard, in a way that all agree. Nor do I think that is a problem.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 11 nov. 2020 om 19:51 schreef Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everybody knows a difference,
>>>
>>
>> If "everybody knows it", then let's define what that difference is and
>> write it down.  That is why this list exists.  It is a bad idea to presume
>> that different cultures and languages share a common understanding and
>> terminology.  The reason we are even discussing this in the first place is
>> precisely because the difference between pond and lake is not universally
>> clear.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a threshing floor

2020-11-11 Thread António Madeira via Tagging

So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the
wiki or create a Feature Proposal?


Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the
same objects having more or less historic value. If there
is something to distinguish at all, my suggestion would be
to add a qualifier to those objects of exceptional
historical value (if this is verifiable).


We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical
value, it's
historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of
no historical
value do not get tagged with historic=*.  That's because
historic is
not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old,
disused or
repurposed.


just that it is not what we are currently doing.

That is not what some of us are currently doing.  Others read the wiki
page
and tag accordingly.

It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and some of the
discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
those who do not have English as a first language.  There is a
difference between "historical" and "historic."

Historians are concerned with historical data.  Old data (about
populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. The
assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.

When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly do is
look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
also historic.

See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
for a better explanation.

So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states) to
the important
things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen
to be looking into.

So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have misused
the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?

--
Paul


___
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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Peter Elderson
There is no "it". Everybody has their own "it", and even that may be
inconsistent.
I am not opposed to ponds and lakes - I just don't see a common definition
coming up without "generally" (but not always), "typically"(but may be
different), "usually"(except where it's not), "in most countries" (but not
everywhere) etc etc.

I don't think most bodies of water can be tagged as pond or lake by any
common standard, in a way that all agree. Nor do I think that is a problem.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 11 nov. 2020 om 19:51 schreef Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>
>> Everybody knows a difference,
>>
>
> If "everybody knows it", then let's define what that difference is and
> write it down.  That is why this list exists.  It is a bad idea to presume
> that different cultures and languages share a common understanding and
> terminology.  The reason we are even discussing this in the first place is
> precisely because the difference between pond and lake is not universally
> clear.
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

2020-11-11 Thread stevea
I hope this doesn't throw too much additional confusion into electricity:grid, 
but in many parts of the world (including where I am, California) a frequent 
method for connecting solar panels to both one's house / commercial building 
and the grid is to do what is known as "grid-tie," sometimes called "net 
metering."

Grid-tie means that during sunshine, the solar panels generate and "spin the 
electric meter backwards" (creating a credit to the customer with the electric 
company) and at night, when electricity use / loads create a debit (by drawing 
power directly from the grid / electric company), the meter "spins forward" as 
usual during power use.  Of course, the idea is that generation and load 
balance each other out during a billing cycle and this "net metering" nets out 
to about zero, so the customer has a near-zero bill.

That is prevalent enough in the world that if OSM is going to design a tag for 
electricity:grid, it really needs a syntactic accommodation for "grid_tie" or 
"net_metering" (which are essentially the same).  Especially as I'm not sure if 
this would go under electricity or electricity:source (which introduce at the 
same time), I haven't any specific suggestion on a key, tag or namespace, but I 
think it important to mention what I haven't seen in this discussion.

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


[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Place of mourning (replacing "Chapel of rest")

2020-11-11 Thread wolle68

Dear all,

As already discussed, "place of mourning" seems to be a less bad label 
than "chapel of rest".


Therefore please comment on the following new proposal:

Place of mourning: a room or building where families and friends can 
come and view someone who has died, before their funeral


Proposal page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Place_of_mourning
Discussion page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Place_of_mourning


Thanks!

Vollis

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev :

> My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber,
> Lyft, Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles
> using “Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia.
>


I am not convinced. In Germany, there clearly is a distinction between ride
sharing ("Mitfahrzentrale" and others, "I am going somewhere anyway and
share petrol costs with other people I can take on the free seats in my
car") and companies like Uber etc. which are considered
"Personenbeförderung" ("I sort of work informally for a company which
weasels around taxi and employment legislation by trying to make their
business look as if it was about ride sharing").



> Even in UK, "ride-sharing" is a common term when addressing these
> companies, e.g. on the BBC and Evening Standard websites. It can be found
> much more often than "private hire”.
>


It is a term that these companies use themselves because it has a positive
image, and someone picks it up. I do not say it cannot be understood, my
point is we should not use it, because it devaluates the term.



>
> On the other hand, in London drivers of these cars need to have “private
> hire” licenses. We’re discussing access restriction, and these are for
> cars/drivers, not for companies. In London specifically this term might be
> more correct. In any other place the probability of finding a “ride share
> vehicles” restriction is higher than for “private hire vehicles”.
>


there are no restrictions for true ride sharing. These are cars like any
other cars, and ordinary drivers who can go anywhere where any other driver
can go (almost, actually they will have an advantage von heavy occupancy
lanes).



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridesharing_company
>


yeah, the English wikipedia is quite dominated by the North American point
of view. I am a bit astonished that the page is only available in 6
languages. which could hint that there is some problem with it, for example
there is also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpool which is available in
32 languages.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:


> Everybody knows a difference,
>

If "everybody knows it", then let's define what that difference is and
write it down.  That is why this list exists.  It is a bad idea to presume
that different cultures and languages share a common understanding and
terminology.  The reason we are even discussing this in the first place is
precisely because the difference between pond and lake is not universally
clear.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
There are lots of tags in OSM that have fuzzy borders with respect to size
or importance. Some that I can think of are waterway=river/stream and
place=island/islet. Although the island/islet tag does have a hard boundary
at least in the JOSM validator and an approximate boundary in the OSM wiki
("about 1 square kilometre"). That doesn't mean that the distinction is
useless for lake/pond.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 7:23 PM OSM,  wrote:

> Maybe there is no clear-cut between a lake and a pond - but for me there
> is at least a clear impression by size of a pond or a lake beyond the
> transition zone.
> I never would call a natural small water or a 'Gartenteich' (garden
> pond) a lake.
>
> --
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

2020-11-11 Thread Lukas Richert
The tagging from the original proposal has now changed significantly in 
the past weeks and, I think, has gotten more robust and modular. It has, 
however, then lost backwards compatability although the tag was not used 
often and it should be straightforward to migrate the tags to the new 
scheme. I'd be happy to hear more feedback on the proposal as it 
currently stands. Otherwise, if discussion concludes this week I would 
then move on to voting next week.


Cheers, Lukas

On 05/11/2020 15:32, Lukas Richert wrote:


I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace 
based tagging of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and 
clearer to tag backup generators and grid-connected houses with solar 
panels etc IMO. Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag 
electricity:grid=yes and electricity=no in the case of grid connected 
houses experiencing a long-term power outage during a natural disaster?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

Regards, Lukas

On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert wrote:


I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would 
allow for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.


The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing 
electricity=none and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would 
be relatively straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem 
with people adding major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. 
Especially power_supply is frustrating. )


What do others think about the tag options

electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
electricity=yes
electricity=no

[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
instead of


electricity=grid
electricity=generator
electricity=yes
electricity=no

Cheers Lukas


On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert > wrote:


Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are
usually diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a
loss of detail, but the tagging would still be correct. I'm
hesitant to use *offgrid* as a building that has, for example, a
grid connection with solar panels on the roof would then be
tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.

However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is
it easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it
is connected to a generator? And, would it be necessary to
differentiate between local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no
substations, transfromers, etc.) and national grids? Perhaps
then a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national,
local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?

A further suggestion was to change the tagging
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less
ambiguous for tagging amenities or buildings that get
electricity from both sources and would then be more consistent
with tagging such as *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when,
e.g. a building has a backup diesel generator but is connected
to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with
the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this
already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*

Here is the link to that suggestion I made 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values 
 and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources 



The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these 
potential issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the 
goal is just to implement someone else's standard then we can't use 
the wisdom of the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm 
not too fussed about making this match what another project is 
using, instead we should aim to have the best tags and documentation 
as the outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different, 
other projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community 
accepted schema.


___
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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Peter Elderson
I am getting a foot vs hiking feeling. Everybody knows a difference, nobody has 
the same difference. In the end, it does not matter.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 11 nov. 2020 om 16:02 heeft Brian M. Sperlongano  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's 
> fine.  Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and 
> let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the 
> definitions provided.  That's no different than the wetland= tag in which 
> there are lots of edge cases in the real world that are not quite one or the 
> other.  I assume there will be cases where "such and such pond" is properly 
> tagged water=lake and vice versa, but that's fine if there's a definition to 
> stand on.
> 
> If we are going with a "what people call it" definition, then the distinction 
> is purely redundant and worse may not translate appropriately into other 
> languages which might have a different array of terms for such bodies of 
> water.
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:30 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 13:12, Brian M. Sperlongano  
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If so, 
>>> what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ 
>>> Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived 
>>> from and redundant with name?
>> 
>> It's possible to make the distinction.  It's not clear-cut.  There are 
>> several
>> definitions which are not entirely compatible with each other, but they
>> have more similarities than differences.  Edge cases are hard.
>> 
>> See, for example:
>> 
>> https://lakes.grace.edu/ponds-vs-lakes-whats-the-difference/
>> https://www.lakemat.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-lake-and-a-pond/
>> https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/bb/documents/bb-49.pdf
>> https://www.lakescientist.com/lake-facts/how-lakes-differ/
>> 
>> Most of them agree that lakes have aphotic zones (deep areas that receive
>> no sunlight, preventing plants from growing there).  But wave height, 
>> uniformity
>> of temperature, and area of water may play a part.  And, of course, there's 
>> what
>> the locals call it.
>>> 
>>> Is there a conceivable scenario where a data consumer or renderer would 
>>> care about the distinction between these two tags?
>> 
>> Renderers will probably treat them identically  A limnologist would find the
>> distinction useful. 
>> 
>> There is also a distinction between pools and ponds.  However, since pools
>> are supplied by a spring or a stream, most can be distinguished by other
>> water=* occurring in conjunction with them (a lot of the ponds I've mapped
>> are actually pools).
>> 
>> https://www.askdifference.com/pool-vs-pond/
>> 
>> -- 
>> Paul
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> 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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Paul Allen
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 15:02, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's
> fine.  Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and
> let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the
> definitions provided.
>

I would be happy with that.  However, there may be unknown cases as well
as edge cases - the mapper just doesn't have enough information at the
time of mapping.  In such cases I'd support the wiki stating "Make your
best guess and if new information comes along the tagging can be
edited."


>   That's no different than the wetland= tag in which there are lots of
> edge cases in the real world that are not quite one or the other.  I assume
> there will be cases where "such and such pond" is properly tagged
> water=lake and vice versa, but that's fine if there's a definition to stand
> on.
>

I suspect there will be more ponds named "something lake" than vice-versa.
Property developers have been alleged to rename ponds as lakes just to
make their development seem more attractive.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
Regarding the private_hire, I’m not so sure. We indeed you English spelling for 
tags (colour, neighbourhood), and that’s okay since it’s consistent. But when 
instead of just spelling we use a UK-specific legal term, it might be not 
understood. For example, see village_green.

My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber, Lyft, 
Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles using 
“Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia.

Even in UK, "ride-sharing" is a common term when addressing these companies, 
e.g. on the BBC and Evening Standard websites. It can be found much more often 
than "private hire”.

On the other hand, in London drivers of these cars need to have “private hire” 
licenses. We’re discussing access restriction, and these are for cars/drivers, 
not for companies. In London specifically this term might be more correct. In 
any other place the probability of finding a “ride share vehicles” restriction 
is higher than for “private hire vehicles”.

So when I see rideshare=designated, as a person living outside England, I can 
immediately understand what that means. For private_hire I would need to refer 
to wikipedia or google the term. Wikipedia, of course, uses “Ride-sharing” for 
these companies as well, and not once mentions “private hire” in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridesharing_company 


My vote is for “rideshare”, although I’m not invested in any of the terms, 
provided we agree on something and then can map access restrictions that have 
been on the ground for years.

Ilya

> On 31 Oct 2020, at 20:57, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> It's almost never standard to use access=bus or access=taxi, it's 
> bus=yes/no/designated + taxi=yes/no/designated added to another feature like 
> a highway=* or amenity=parking
> 
> I agree with the idea of using private_hire=* instead of rideshare=* because 
> this appears to be a proper British English term for any non-taxi, privately 
> arranged transport vehicle, and it's not as misleading as "rideshare" when 
> used on services like Uber and Lyft. Though I would like to see more British 
> folks weigh in on the correct terminology.
> 
> See 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#Private_hire_(minicabs)
>  
> 
> 
> -- Joseph EIsenberg
> 
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:51 AM Brian M. Sperlongano  > wrote:
> Actually I quite like "private_hire" as an access value.
> 
> Are you suggesting access=private_hire as a tag?  That would not be 
> consistent with how taxi services are tagged.  We don't use access=taxi, we 
> use amenity=taxi + taxi=*.  By that logic, the access tagging should use 
> private_hire=*, and probably with some value of amenity=.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> 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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's
fine.  Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and
let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the
definitions provided.  That's no different than the wetland= tag in which
there are lots of edge cases in the real world that are not quite one or
the other.  I assume there will be cases where "such and such pond" is
properly tagged water=lake and vice versa, but that's fine if there's a
definition to stand on.

If we are going with a "what people call it" definition, then the
distinction is purely redundant and worse may not translate appropriately
into other languages which might have a different array of terms for such
bodies of water.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:30 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 13:12, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If so,
>> what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ
>> Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived
>> from and redundant with name?
>>
>
> It's possible to make the distinction.  It's not clear-cut.  There are
> several
> definitions which are not entirely compatible with each other, but they
> have more similarities than differences.  Edge cases are hard.
>
> See, for example:
>
> https://lakes.grace.edu/ponds-vs-lakes-whats-the-difference/
> https://www.lakemat.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-lake-and-a-pond/
>
> https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/bb/documents/bb-49.pdf
> https://www.lakescientist.com/lake-facts/how-lakes-differ/
>
> Most of them agree that lakes have aphotic zones (deep areas that receive
> no sunlight, preventing plants from growing there).  But wave height,
> uniformity
> of temperature, and area of water may play a part.  And, of course,
> there's what
> the locals call it.
>
>>
>> Is there a conceivable scenario where a data consumer or renderer would
>> care about the distinction between these two tags?
>>
>
> Renderers will probably treat them identically  A limnologist would find
> the
> distinction useful.
>
> There is also a distinction between pools and ponds.  However, since pools
> are supplied by a spring or a stream, most can be distinguished by other
> water=* occurring in conjunction with them (a lot of the ponds I've mapped
> are actually pools).
>
> https://www.askdifference.com/pool-vs-pond/
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 15:52 Uhr schrieb Seth Deegan :

> If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so
> by computing the lake size in the (the area of the way), rather than its
> tagging.
>


the lake size is determined also by its depth

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Seth Deegan
Yes, but the range in size of lakes is massive (local ones compared to the
Great Lakes in the U.S.). You wouldn’t want the names of smaller lakes
showing up at lower zoom levels like the Great Lakes should.

If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so
by computing the lake size in the (the area of the way), rather than its
tagging.

El El mié, nov. 11, 2020 a la(s) 07:31, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>> This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and
>>> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful.
>>>
>>>  In what way is this distinction useful?
>>
>
>
> for example you could prioritize rendering of lake names compared to pond
> names (assuming you give more importance to lakes).
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 
Thanks,
Seth
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

> This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and
>> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful.
>>
>>  In what way is this distinction useful?
>


for example you could prioritize rendering of lake names compared to pond
names (assuming you give more importance to lakes).

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Alessandro Sarretta

On 11/11/20 14:10, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If 
so, what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named 
"XYZ Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus 
water=lake derived from and redundant with name?


Is there a conceivable scenario where a data consumer or renderer 
would care about the distinction between these two tags?


When I go walking in the mountains, I like do follow tracks that are 
close to ponds (in this case, small (~10m) body of water where animals 
can go to drink) and I can find many of them in a few kilometres. Lakes 
are very different from that :-)


Ale


--

Alessandro Sarretta

skype/twitter: alesarrett
Web: ilsarrett.wordpress.com 

Research information:

 * Google scholar profile
   
 * ORCID 
 * Research Gate 
 * Impactstory 

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Paul Allen
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 13:12, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If so,
> what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ
> Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived
> from and redundant with name?
>

It's possible to make the distinction.  It's not clear-cut.  There are
several
definitions which are not entirely compatible with each other, but they
have more similarities than differences.  Edge cases are hard.

See, for example:

https://lakes.grace.edu/ponds-vs-lakes-whats-the-difference/
https://www.lakemat.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-lake-and-a-pond/
https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/bb/documents/bb-49.pdf
https://www.lakescientist.com/lake-facts/how-lakes-differ/

Most of them agree that lakes have aphotic zones (deep areas that receive
no sunlight, preventing plants from growing there).  But wave height,
uniformity
of temperature, and area of water may play a part.  And, of course, there's
what
the locals call it.

>
> Is there a conceivable scenario where a data consumer or renderer would
> care about the distinction between these two tags?
>

Renderers will probably treat them identically  A limnologist would find the
distinction useful.

There is also a distinction between pools and ponds.  However, since pools
are supplied by a spring or a stream, most can be distinguished by other
water=* occurring in conjunction with them (a lot of the ponds I've mapped
are actually pools).

https://www.askdifference.com/pool-vs-pond/

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
>
> This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and
> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful.
>
>  In what way is this distinction useful?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If so,
what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ
Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived
from and redundant with name?

Is there a conceivable scenario where a data consumer or renderer would
care about the distinction between these two tags?

Whether it is called "lake" or "pond" or "hole" or "tarn" or "loch" or even
"sea", these seem to be customary terms rather than distinct features with
definable characteristics.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 7:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> From what I understood to me it also seems desirable to distinguish a
> "lake" from a "pond", although there may be edge cases and no clear cut
> between both, for many cases it will be clear which one to choose. Maybe
> most could be solved by depth and surface dimensions, but we are generally
> missing the depth information so in practise we can not rely on it.
> I am still not completely sure which water bodies can be characterized as
> a pond (e.g. do all these German words apply: "Teich", "Tümpel", "Weiher"?
> What about "Lache" and "Soll"?) May a pond fall dry? Is there a minimum
> dimension?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Chris Hill

On 10/11/2020 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of 
"water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description.


"A pond : a body of standing 
water, man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake. 
Salt evaporation ponds should be tagged with landuse 
=salt_pond 
, 
open-air swimming pools — with leisure 
=swimming_pool 
."


So it might be artificial, like a landuse=reservoir or 
water=reservoir, but smallish. Or it might be natural like a 
water=lake, but smallish. However, nothing on the water=lake page 
defines a lower limit for the size of a lake.


This is a shame, because all the other values of water=* are clearly 
defined as only natural, or only artificial, and waterway=* features 
are also clearly divided. Furthermore, the original lags 
landuse=reservoir and landuse=basin were also clearly artificial, 
while lakes were natural.


But the biggest problem is that there is no way to define a lower size 
for a lake or reservoir, or an upper size for a pond. And the size of 
the area is easier available from the geometry of the feature, so it 
doesn't need to be mentioned in the tag.


I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using 
water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir 
or water=basin (or landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the 
artificial ones.


-- Joseph Eisenberg
--


This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake 
and a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is 
useful.


If we squash detail from tagging we are left with nothing. Maybe we 
should just tag everything as thing=yes?


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
>From what I understood to me it also seems desirable to distinguish a
"lake" from a "pond", although there may be edge cases and no clear cut
between both, for many cases it will be clear which one to choose. Maybe
most could be solved by depth and surface dimensions, but we are generally
missing the depth information so in practise we can not rely on it.
I am still not completely sure which water bodies can be characterized as a
pond (e.g. do all these German words apply: "Teich", "Tümpel", "Weiher"?
What about "Lache" and "Soll"?) May a pond fall dry? Is there a minimum
dimension?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Yves via Tagging
We should get rid of all tags too close to natural language.
I propose a unified tagging scheme:
material = dihydrogen monoxyde
formula = H2O
flowing = yes/no
depth = xx

Wait, in fact this could be extended to anything from building to trees!!
Yves 

Le 10 novembre 2020 06:26:39 GMT+01:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
 a écrit :
>The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of
>"water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description.
>
>"A pond : a body of standing water,
>man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake. Salt
>evaporation ponds should be tagged with landuse
>=salt_pond
>, open-air
>swimming pools — with leisure
>=swimming_pool
>."
>
>So it might be artificial, like a landuse=reservoir or water=reservoir, but
>smallish. Or it might be natural like a water=lake, but smallish. However,
>nothing on the water=lake page defines a lower limit for the size of a lake.
>
>This is a shame, because all the other values of water=* are clearly
>defined as only natural, or only artificial, and waterway=* features are
>also clearly divided. Furthermore, the original lags landuse=reservoir and
>landuse=basin were also clearly artificial, while lakes were natural.
>
>But the biggest problem is that there is no way to define a lower size for
>a lake or reservoir, or an upper size for a pond. And the size of the area
>is easier available from the geometry of the feature, so it doesn't need to
>be mentioned in the tag.
>
>I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using
>water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or
>water=basin (or landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the
>artificial ones.
>
>-- Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread OSM
Maybe there is no clear-cut between a lake and a pond - but for me there 
is at least a clear impression by size of a pond or a lake beyond the 
transition zone.
I never would call a natural small water or a 'Gartenteich' (garden 
pond) a lake.


--
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com


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