Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Using terms such as "on a rampage" and "gods know where else he is buldozzing" is inappropriate and does not contribute to this discussion. Such rhetoric will not convince other mappers to use a certain tagging method. This language does not promote an open and welcoming community. It does not

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-17, kt, 18:20 Joseph Eisenberg rašė: > That's not accurate, Tomas. Why? Mateusz without the end of discussion started, well continued editing the wiki (I had to correct some of his misinterpretations which have been discussed here), he also made some attempts in JOSM trac, these are

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
That's not accurate, Tomas. The Tag:water=reservoir page has been edited by 4 people this week, including ZeLonewolf, Warin61, Kjon and me (Jeisenbe): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Awater%3Dreservoir=revision=2073583=1860772 - Mateusz has not edited this page. The page

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-17 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 17, 2020, 08:02 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the >> natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes >> is very

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
And while we're discussing here, Mateusz is already on a rampage to change wiki pages, write patches etc. Thus buldozzing his opinion, ignoring others. Showing "community building" behaviour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) > from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important > for proper rendering of many maps. and it seems

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:43, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature > with basin=retention > Maybe? But there's an awful lot of them tagged as reservoirs! Thanks Graeme > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature with basin=retention On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, > because they're mounded up above the ground eg > >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I should have added ... So really, they're not "natural" in any way (except for the water in them!, & even that is frequently pumped in). Thanks Graeme On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, because they're mounded up above the ground eg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg For a full explanation:

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Guillaume
That Wikipedia page is right. The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American English. Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Guillaume
This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir. It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach. I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being sure what subtag to use. I now think

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the > information that I had. > That is sign of bad tagging scheme. > I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the Wiki.   > Is it enough? > I asked

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at > it: what is exception from the reservoir rule - hard shoreline or non > hard. I was thinking of the ways to map fuzzy shore in OSM and had the > same idea to tag fuzzy

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 20:30 Kevin Kenny rašė: >> https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154 > Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging? waterway=rapid At the time of usage it was deprecated (and plural), but I know what that means and after each discussion on tagging list I'm less and

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare - opposite of lake/reservoir data. > Therefore it's fine to map what you need only: > https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154 Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging? An example (with

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 20:03 Kevin Kenny rašė: > Many smaller reservoirs have artificially hardened shorelines completely > surrounding them, which could be why you thought that the symbology > distinguishes 'lake' from 'reservoir.' This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > In other maps reservoirs (US?) could have black border. The usual symbology on USGS and DMS maps is that the black border denotes an 'artificial shoreline', where the shore is either stabilized with riprap or concrete, or built up with

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 19:44 Kevin Kenny rašė: > With respect to water, another concern of mine is that our tagging schema > does not > offer any way to tag that there are rapids in a river without knowing how to > grade the > difficulty of a canoe or kayak run. Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare -

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:52 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: "natural=water' wins. I can see that there's water there" > > You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the > natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes > is

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 18:58 Ture Pålsson via Tagging rašė: > Could you elaborate a bit on what cartographic features on that map are > possible or impossible with the different reservoir tagging schemes? Symbolisation (colour), selection (different classes for different scales). In other maps

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Ture Pålsson via Tagging
> 16 dec. 2020 kl. 17:25 skrev Tomas Straupis : > > What about maps made according to Cartographic conventions? > You know, something on the lines of: https://map.geo.admin.ch > Would > it be possible to make maps of such quality writing general queries > like

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "natural=water' wins. I can see that there's water there" You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important for proper rendering of many maps. Also, many areas of natural=water actually

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
My take on it: Wearing my data consumer's hat: For most purposes, I care about "this ground is covered with water". 'natural=water' is the main thing to look for, but I also have to look for 'landuse=reservoir' and several other things that I can't be bothered to look up at the moment. I have to

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 18:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and > render all types of water areas in the same way (some > render also labels in the same way, with exception > for linear features) BTW. It is another advantage of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Hello, Le mer. 16 déc. 2020 à 16:19, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : > If you are not willing to have this question put up for a proposal (where, > as with any proposal, you are free to present your argument for all to > consider), your arguments are in bad faith, and again, must be dismissed >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 18:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and > render all types of water areas in the same way (some > render also labels in the same way, with exception > for linear features) >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Peter Elderson
I'll tag both ways then, or better map none at all? Shirt, another dilemma. I need something stronger than tea. Peter Elderson Op wo 16 dec. 2020 om 17:04 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > > 2020-12-16, tr,

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas >> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish >> between lakes and rivers). It may be

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 17:19 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to > create them. > I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. Have you heard of the saying "correlation is not causation"? You have to understand where numbers come from

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas > (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish > between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning. > > But it is also the most typical and

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to create them. I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. There was a 3:1 preference for water=reservoir during 2017 and 2018, two years prior to the change in iD preset. The data is open, and taginfo provides a very helpful

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 15:22 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir >> (just added) >> > > Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki? > > In my experience

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
Brian, you're using statistics which DO NOT represent mappers preferences. If you would use only JOSM created objects - then it would be close to mappers preferences (as JOSM allows mappers to choose). But you use iD created/adjusted objects and as it does not allow showing your preference

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir > (just added) Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki? My arguments on the points you've added: 1. Regarding benefit of having a

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 14:42 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: >> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema >> as unimportant >> > > Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could > evaluate/compare? > (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas, Since you are not willing to accept (1) an existing approved proposal, (2) new proposal to correct flaws in the first one, or (3) the overwhelming preference of the mapping community over the past four years[1], then I'm sorry but we must curtly dismiss your arguments as a one-man

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema > as unimportant Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could evaluate/compare? (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never materialised) ___

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 14:29 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema? > If there are none > I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema as unimportant But, please, stop pretending that there are no benefits.

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
> If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as landuse is > strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up for a > community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide. Brian, landuse=reservoir is the ORIGINAL and ACTIVE schema. Why

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas, If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as landuse is strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up for a community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide. On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:01 AM Tomas Straupis wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 01:32 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > The iD editor preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM > preset appears to use landuse=reservoir. Not entirely correct. * JOSM gives freedom to mappers and supports BOTH. * iD forces to use water=reservoir and evenmore pushes

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 00:17 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > 1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created water=reservoir > (and other values) as to whether the community intended to deprecate > landuse=reservoir or whether the community intended to create two parallel > tagging schemes for

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of > reservoir tagging? > Good idea to bring it up, but not sure it will resolve anything once & for all? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I want to be clear that in such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or > insulting commentary directed towards any group or individual will not be > tolerated and will be immediately brought to the

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Thanks everyone for the discussion. I believe there are two germane points being raised by Tomas that warrant our consideration: 1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created water=reservoir (and other values) as to whether the community intended to deprecate landuse=reservoir or

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "if a reservoir was fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the actual water surface as water." There is also a more specific tag for this: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse=reservoir_watershed#overview - though most uses were added by an import

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 13, 2020, 19:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> >>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only >> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown >> that. But in case of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 20:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Following outcome of approved proposal that you dislike > is not indicator of not following > standard IT processes of product development. Following some wiki page (which states that landuse=reservoir is not deprecated) written by one

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only > option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown > that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and > thus leading

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 13, 2020, 19:33 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: >> Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? >> >> "iD coders decided to skip standard IT processes of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? > > "iD coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development > (or were not familiar with the basics of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 13, 2020, 18:46 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: Please first stop quoting me in way that presents your statements under my autorship > 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? > "iD coders decided to skip standard IT

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "that schema was lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the only way to tag water" That's not really correct when it comes to landuse=reservoir In this case, landuse=reservoir growth slowed down in 2016 for reasons that are unclear to me: Compare the charts:

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 18:58 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > Let's please assume good faith and be respectful while we discuss > differences of opinion with an open mind - we are all here for the > same reason - working together to create the best possible map for the world. I do agree that sometimes I

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD > coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development > (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what > they personally liked, not

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 13, 2020, 16:35 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > >> 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has >> been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth. >> > > New/duplicate schema with

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas, Respectfully, I ask you to cease the pattern of name-calling, personal attacks, and insulting language used in this forum, and on project bug trackers[1][2]. Let's please assume good faith and be respectful while we discuss differences of opinion with an open mind - we are all here for

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
But prudent way would probably be to come with some rules on change of tagging schema. Like: * When tagging schema is too widespread to be protected against changes * What benefits should new schema add in order to deprecate existing schema Because otherwise this plague of deprecating existing

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has > been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth. New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD coders decided to skip

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
on topic of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir I have strong preference toward version with natural=water, but landuse=reservoir is clearly still in significant use on topic of what is deciding for tag popularity Dec 13, 2020, 15:31 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13,

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water + > water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir? > > The reality is that no matter what it says in the wiki and no matter what

[Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
This story is offered because I find it interesting, and as a possible catalyst for updates to our tagging documentation. I offer apologies to those that are well aware of this controversy. There are two competing ways to tag reservoirs: landuse=reservoir, or natural=water + water=reservoir.