Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:10 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Yes, we already have fee and access which can cope with these things. > What we didn't have was an understanding in the US that such tags > were even applicable or that anyone might wish to map fishing > features on rivers, especially pools that don't "bulge" enough to > be obvious from aerial imagery but which are obvious from > detailed measurement (using, say, a rod, line and float) on > the ground. The legislation affects the degree to which > such details become public knowledge. > Yeah... but... Don't think we don't understand that we can apply the tags; we just don't often need them. The New York State-owned lands have pretty uniform rules for hunting and fishing; for these, I follow 'don't tag the local legislation'. The New York City ones vary all over the place, and the import of those tags them specifically. For instance, in the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481482895 there is, `foot=hunting;fishing' - public foot access allowed only for the stated purposes. 'hunting=permit fishing=permit trapping=no' - a permit is required for hunting or fishing; the setting of traps is prohibited. `NYSDEC:wildlife_management_unit=3H` - the specific state Wildlife Management Unit that hunters must consult. `website=*` - link to lots more information, including, of course, how a permit may be obtained. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304851 has similar tagging, but declares that you don't need a permit to fish there. (Or to enter on foot for other reasons, but I find it hard to imagine why you'd want to go plooshing about in that marsh if it weren't to fish.) We do have facilities devoted to fishing access, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396542 -- which doesn't render because there's no good "tag for the renderer" approach. (That one's not got access constraints shown because it's free to all comers; of course, anglers over 16 need a state fishing license.) Essentially all of our Wildlife Management Areas are devoted to the preservation of habitat for game fish and for wild game for hunters. ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6367671 is an example. There are a great many of these.) Once again, these are free to all comers. These are supported financially by the revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and by a tax on arms and ammunition. There are some of our State Forests, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7229593, that I can't imagine why you'd trouble to visit if it weren't to fish. (Note the adjacent presence of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429194108.) I can easily see how 'access=private', 'access=fee' and so on would apply to fishing spots. I just haven't had occasion to map any. You're right that I haven't mapped a lot of specific fishing spots, but that's partly because they're so numerous. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 9:00 AM Paul Allen All of which has drifted somewhat off topic, but until we have a > reasonable understanding of how different legislations handle > things we don't have a good model of how we ought to go > about mapping them (or even if we should map them). > I'm not sure I understand this. It sounds like these questions are perfectly satisfied by fee=* and access=* (and its derivatives, such as fishing=*), not to mention related_law=* if you really want to get into it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 05:40, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I'm giving away all my favourite spots here but both of these the stream > is mapped a a way, and has the pool under the waterfall mapped as an area, > so you can determine pools under a waterfall based on the natural=water > area with one of the nodes being a waterway=waterfall node. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/531128566 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32173325 > > If we want a separate tag for this that's fine, but currently people use > the water=stream_pool in OSM to tag these. > Until water=stream_pool came along, these would have been mapped as water=pond, or even left as natural=water without defining the type of water. I expect many still are mapped that way, even today. Do we need to differentiate between stream pools and plunge pools given that so many of both are already mapped as ponds? I can see arguments both ways and don't (yet) have strong feelings either way. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
We have a spot on the ocean shore, right at (below, at sea level) the entrance to a state park, in an urban area: it's known locally as "the toilet bowl" and it's node/3370641047. It's tagged hazard=yes (best I could do at the time, I suppose; I tagged it in 2015) and "dangerous area, no swimming." We can do better (now or soon). > On Dec 23, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 15:14, Brian M. Sperlongano > wrote: > "I'd like to swim in a small pool with a waterfall". > > Good spot for one of your hazard tags! > > We have Natural Bridge nearby > https://www.queensland.com/au/en/things-to-do/attractions/p-56b25f942880253d74c479de-natural-bridge-springbrook-national-park.html, > which is a hole cut in the roof of a cave by millions of year of rushing > water, making a waterfall. > > Unfortunately, over the years, despite warnings not to swim in there, quite a > few people have drowned, as the force of the falling water pulls them under & > back, they can't see & so run out of air :-( ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 15:14, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > "I'd like to swim in a small pool with a waterfall". > Good spot for one of your hazard tags! We have Natural Bridge nearby https://www.queensland.com/au/en/things-to-do/attractions/p-56b25f942880253d74c479de-natural-bridge-springbrook-national-park.html, which is a hole cut in the roof of a cave by millions of year of rushing water, making a waterfall. Unfortunately, over the years, despite warnings not to swim in there, quite a few people have drowned, as the force of the falling water pulls them under & back, they can't see & so run out of air :-( Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
I'm giving away all my favourite spots here but both of these the stream is mapped a a way, and has the pool under the waterfall mapped as an area, so you can determine pools under a waterfall based on the natural=water area with one of the nodes being a waterway=waterfall node. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/531128566 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32173325 If we want a separate tag for this that's fine, but currently people use the water=stream_pool in OSM to tag these. On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 16:31, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > That doesn't work if the river/stream is modeled as a way only. Also, it > assumes that every waterfall has a plunge pool - I'm not sure that's the > case. > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:25 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> Mind you, you do need any of these tags to determine that. You can >> automatically measure natural=water size where the way contains a waterfall >> node. >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 4:14 pm Brian M. Sperlongano, >> wrote: >> >>> I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in >>> a small pool with a waterfall". >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:10 AM Andrew Harvey >>> wrote: >>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > Isn't that a plunge pool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool > I didn't even know plunge pools where a thing until Kevin Kenny > mentioned them. He knows everything. > Probably, but per wikipedia (again I'm no expert on this) "Plunge pools, or plunge basins, are stream pools formed by the action of waterfalls", so plunge pools are just a specific type of stream pool, When I originally documented stream_pool on the wiki after the mailing list discussion the intent was that plunge pools would be tagged as water=stream_pool. ___ 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 >> > ___ > 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] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
That doesn't work if the river/stream is modeled as a way only. Also, it assumes that every waterfall has a plunge pool - I'm not sure that's the case. On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:25 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > Mind you, you do need any of these tags to determine that. You can > automatically measure natural=water size where the way contains a waterfall > node. > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 4:14 pm Brian M. Sperlongano, > wrote: > >> I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in >> a small pool with a waterfall". >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:10 AM Andrew Harvey >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: >>> Isn't that a plunge pool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool I didn't even know plunge pools where a thing until Kevin Kenny mentioned them. He knows everything. >>> >>> Probably, but per wikipedia (again I'm no expert on this) "Plunge pools, >>> or plunge basins, are stream pools formed by the action of waterfalls", so >>> plunge pools are just a specific type of stream pool, When I originally >>> documented stream_pool on the wiki after the mailing list discussion the >>> intent was that plunge pools would be tagged as water=stream_pool. >>> ___ >>> 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 > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
Mind you, you do need any of these tags to determine that. You can automatically measure natural=water size where the way contains a waterfall node. On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 4:14 pm Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: > I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in a > small pool with a waterfall". > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:10 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> >>> Isn't that a plunge pool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool >>> I didn't even know plunge pools where a thing until Kevin Kenny >>> mentioned them. He knows everything. >>> >> >> Probably, but per wikipedia (again I'm no expert on this) "Plunge pools, >> or plunge basins, are stream pools formed by the action of waterfalls", so >> plunge pools are just a specific type of stream pool, When I originally >> documented stream_pool on the wiki after the mailing list discussion the >> intent was that plunge pools would be tagged as water=stream_pool. >> ___ >> 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] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in a small pool with a waterfall". On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:10 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> Isn't that a plunge pool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool >> I didn't even know plunge pools where a thing until Kevin Kenny >> mentioned them. He knows everything. >> > > Probably, but per wikipedia (again I'm no expert on this) "Plunge pools, > or plunge basins, are stream pools formed by the action of waterfalls", so > plunge pools are just a specific type of stream pool, When I originally > documented stream_pool on the wiki after the mailing list discussion the > intent was that plunge pools would be tagged as water=stream_pool. > ___ > 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] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On North America's west coast and in "the West" (ern states of the USA), I've heard "hole" used for both fishing spots and swimming spots in creeks, streams and rivers (and "pools," what I often see called a "thickening" of the river, such as a calmer not-quite-eddy off to one side that might go a bit deeper than usual, sometimes with river-cliff diving!). I've also seen "official" naming conventions on waterways like "Branciforte Creek Reach 2" where an urban river/creek becomes a concrete canal (named "Reach 1"), becoming channelized to flow into a more major waterway. Los Angeles has a lot of these (concrete, channelized rivers) in its vast conurbation, very useful for flood control. Yes, if I want to angle in a creek or river, I'll do it on public land, where there are plenty of opportunities (sometimes requiring a permit from state Fish & Game department, sometimes not). Somebody wants to charge me money for a permit to fish on private land, I'll pass, thanks. I realize that in some parts of the world, though, "that's how angling happens." Two whole cents, SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:08 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:17 AM Paul Allen wrote: >> >> British anglers must be different from American ones. Most fishermen that >> I know don't want their favorite fishing holes to be mapped! They'll tell >> you where they are if you're really nice and ply them with a pint or three, >> but will then swear you to secrecy! >> > > The good places for certain types of fish require permits. Angling > associations make their money by selling permits to waters they control. > > Teifi Trout Association maps: https://teifitrout.co.uk/tta-waters/ > and permits https://teifitrout.co.uk/tta-shop/fishing-permits/ > Ah. Around here, the best freshwater fishing is mostly on public land. Since the anglers can't sell permits, they keep the choice places to themselves. (A handful also work as wilderness guides. :) ) Around here the fishermen have names for some of the pools too, such as Bear Hole https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14799397098, Devil's Kitchen https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/7082920415, Rat Hole https://youtu.be/2rCKgEum2FQ?t=39 and Fawn's Leap https://youtu.be/2rCKgEum2FQ?t=77 (Oh, yeah, did I mention that the cliff divers have names for them, too?) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 09:00, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:25 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > I've had one German solemnly assure me that anything labeled a 'creek' in > English is a minor watercourse, and challenge why I was mapping a riverbank > for Schoharie Creek. > Thanks, Kevin, entertaining as always! :-) I've also seen a couple of comments that "Creeks are small", & always have a wonder about them? Here are two of our local "Creeks" https://goo.gl/maps/47KR97bhpjpSBpDv5 & https://goo.gl/maps/fru9t4Vg7NynNPtv8 Definitely wouldn't try jumping across either of them, although a lot of people have fun jumping into them, frequently off the bridges! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 18:04, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > It seems like the convention for rivers is that the river's continuity > (and name) are carried with the waterway=river ways and not the area > polygons that cover the width of the river (regardless of whether you use > the water=river or waterway=riverbank scheme). > So it appears to me. I also note that the distinction (effectively) between stream/river (the > only variants that are in serious use) is that a stream is small enough > that it's modeled by a way, while a river is large enough to require > drawing a polygon. > Erm, nope. The distinction is whether or not you can jump across it. However, wider rivers may benefit from a polygon. But if you're in a hurry, or can't be bothered, don't use a polygon. Whenever I have masochistic urges I extend the polygon on Afon Teifi further upstream. This is as far as I've gone from the estuary, and you can see that the rendering without the polygon doesn't do it justice: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.05829=-4.58272#map=17/52.05829/-4.58272 Follow the river a little way east from that point and you'll see a stream join the unpolygonned river. Follow the river a little way north from that point and you'll see the stream Nant Eifed join the polygonned river. > I will make an assumption that there exists a class of these pools that > are large enough that we would want to be able to map them as an area (and > we wouldn't call them a pond), > Not so much wouldn't call them a pond as shouldn't call them a pond (unless we declare pools to be honorary ponds for OSM purposes). and there are also some that are small enough that mapping them as a node > or linear way is fine also. > A node, maybe. I'm not sure a linear way makes sense. > 5. Be the same tagging for both rivers and streams > That could be hard. It doesn't make sense to put a polygon on a stream, they're not wide enough. > > I think it's fine if a river does not have continuity of water=river or > waterway=riverbank polygons, as long as the waterway=river is properly > contiguous. I.e. I think it would be fine to have a sequence of river > polygons with a stream pool polygon in between. > It would be rare (but not impossible) for the whole width of a river to be a pool. Mostly it's one side of the river where the flow rate slows. But since the polygons overlay the water=river it should all work. Maybe a carto problem with name overlaps/priority, but that's probably soluble. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 00:50, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Great discussion, here and in the 2017 thread. Participation in the > tagging list is certainly educational. > > water=stream_pool suffers from a few problems, and its use seems far from > a settled question. (None of this is meant as criticism, as I understand > all too well the hard work involved in developing proposals and good wiki > documentation). > > In the three years since that discussion, water=stream_pool has achieved > just 425 usages. I assume that the biggest reason for this is that it's > only documented as an entry in the table for the wiki page for Key=water. > Notably absent is any mention of stream pools (or for that matter, plunge > pools) from either of the two main wiki pages for river documentation > (water=river vs waterway=riverbank). This begs the question of how > water=stream_pool should interlace with river polygons for mapping. > All the ones I've encountered the stream/river was only ever mapped as a linear way, so it's just a linear way for the stream and then an area way for the stream pool. > Stream/plunge pools are part of a river or stream (I assert this based on > Wikipedia's definition). Logically, one might think "chop up the river > polygon, and tag the stream pool portion as a stream pool". This approach > has a few problems: > > 1. If the river area is tagged with the water=river scheme, the area of > the stream pool is no longer tagged as a river (because water=stream_pool > conflicts with water=river). This is wrong because the stream/plunge pool > is indeed part of the river. You could use the waterway=riverbank scheme, > but now you're blending the two types of river tagging. Yuck. > 2. If the stream pool has a name, that portion of the river loses the name > of the river, as the polygon can only have one name= tag. The > waterway=river way of course would still carry the name, so you do still > maintain continuity. But you lose concepts like "the total surface area of > the river". > > Alternately, you could overlap the pool area over the river polygon, but > then you're double-tagging the water area which seems like poor practice, > and certainly JOSM would give you a warning for overlapping water features. > > It seems to me that river=stream_pool would have been the more sensible > tagging within the natural=water+water=river scheme, as it further > describes that portion of the river. > So for creeks would you also use river=stream_pool or have also stream=stream_pool? I guess that's fine too. I see your point, it's just I'd never really considered mapping streams/rivers with stream pools as anything other than a linear way. > The low usage and structural problems associated with stream pool tagging > suggest that this is not a ready-for-prime-time tagging scheme, and > deserves a proposal - not just a mailing list discussion - to sort out > fundamentally unanswered questions about how to tag a river with both named > and unnamed stream pools, particularly with regard to how the polygons are > divided and/or overlapped. > I don't think changing the tagging would really change the usage, but if you think there are structural issues with the tag then I'd be happy to try and comment on a proposal. > One might also argue that a stream pool should simply be mapped as a node, > and if it's too big for a node, then perhaps it's more properly tagged as a > pond or lake. Unanswered questions. > Sorry I disagree with that, because water=pond per the wiki is usually man made, and they are too small to be a lake and probably formed differently. > Stream and plunge pools are a part of rivers (per WP definition), and I > don't intend to address river tagging as part of the reservoir/lake/pond > proposal[1]. Therefore, what makes the most sense is to simply scrub > mention of pools and rivers from the proposal and leave it squarely focused > on reservoirs, lakes, and ponds. > Yeah that sounds good, a separate proposal could cover that. > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:49 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> Back in 2017 this was discussed on the list >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031595.html and >> the outcome of that was I added water=stream_pool to the wiki at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water#Natural_features. Is there >> any reason to change this now? I think continuing to tag these as >> natural=water + water=stream_pool is best as currently documented and in >> use. >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 05:13, Brian M. Sperlongano >> wrote: >> >>> Discussion on the current reservoir proposal[1] (which seeks to define >>> the distinction between reservoirs, lakes, and ponds) has brought up the >>> question of stream/plunge pools[2,3], and how they fit into the lake/pond >>> definitions. >>> >>> I've come up with the following text: >>> >>> "Occasionally a river or
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 01:49, Paul Allen wrote: > > I suggest that, when we get around to looking at pools, we consider > the possibility of adding other angling considerations > Carrying on from those, there are other named river features such as Bend & Reach, which we currently have no way of mapping. Another one that comes to mind is when this "pool" in the river is a designated swimming hole? I've seen them mapped as a leisure=swimming_pool in the middle of the river, but that just looks weird! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
sent from a phone > On 22. Dec 2020, at 16:42, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > In current practice the areas of rivers (whether waterway=riverbank or > water=river) are not tagged with a name=* tag, that goes on the linear > waterway=river feature. there’s a 13,6% of all riverbank polygons having a name tag, and 13,4 of all water=river objects. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/waterway=river#combinations In contrast, a small majority of 56% of waterway=river have a name tag attached Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
Brian, In current practice the areas of rivers (whether waterway=riverbank or water=river) are not tagged with a name=* tag, that goes on the linear waterway=river feature. The same is true for canals. This makes sense because the name belongs to the linear watercourse, and adding it to the area would duplicate the name. — Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:50 AM Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Great discussion, here and in the 2017 thread. Participation in the > tagging list is certainly educational. > > water=stream_pool suffers from a few problems, and its use seems far from > a settled question. (None of this is meant as criticism, as I understand > all too well the hard work involved in developing proposals and good wiki > documentation). > > In the three years since that discussion, water=stream_pool has achieved > just 425 usages. I assume that the biggest reason for this is that it's > only documented as an entry in the table for the wiki page for Key=water. > Notably absent is any mention of stream pools (or for that matter, plunge > pools) from either of the two main wiki pages for river documentation > (water=river vs waterway=riverbank). This begs the question of how > water=stream_pool should interlace with river polygons for mapping. > > Stream/plunge pools are part of a river or stream (I assert this based on > Wikipedia's definition). Logically, one might think "chop up the river > polygon, and tag the stream pool portion as a stream pool". This approach > has a few problems: > > 1. If the river area is tagged with the water=river scheme, the area of > the stream pool is no longer tagged as a river (because water=stream_pool > conflicts with water=river). This is wrong because the stream/plunge pool > is indeed part of the river. You could use the waterway=riverbank scheme, > but now you're blending the two types of river tagging. Yuck. > 2. If the stream pool has a name, that portion of the river loses the name > of the river, as the polygon can only have one name= tag. The > waterway=river way of course would still carry the name, so you do still > maintain continuity. But you lose concepts like "the total surface area of > the river". > > Alternately, you could overlap the pool area over the river polygon, but > then you're double-tagging the water area which seems like poor practice, > and certainly JOSM would give you a warning for overlapping water features. > > It seems to me that river=stream_pool would have been the more sensible > tagging within the natural=water+water=river scheme, as it further > describes that portion of the river. > > The low usage and structural problems associated with stream pool tagging > suggest that this is not a ready-for-prime-time tagging scheme, and > deserves a proposal - not just a mailing list discussion - to sort out > fundamentally unanswered questions about how to tag a river with both named > and unnamed stream pools, particularly with regard to how the polygons are > divided and/or overlapped. One might also argue that a stream pool should > simply be mapped as a node, and if it's too big for a node, then perhaps > it's more properly tagged as a pond or lake. Unanswered questions. > > Stream and plunge pools are a part of rivers (per WP definition), and I > don't intend to address river tagging as part of the reservoir/lake/pond > proposal[1]. Therefore, what makes the most sense is to simply scrub > mention of pools and rivers from the proposal and leave it squarely focused > on reservoirs, lakes, and ponds. > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:49 AM Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> Back in 2017 this was discussed on the list >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031595.html and >> the outcome of that was I added water=stream_pool to the wiki at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water#Natural_features. Is there >> any reason to change this now? I think continuing to tag these as >> natural=water + water=stream_pool is best as currently documented and in >> use. >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 05:13, Brian M. Sperlongano >> wrote: >> >>> Discussion on the current reservoir proposal[1] (which seeks to define >>> the distinction between reservoirs, lakes, and ponds) has brought up the >>> question of stream/plunge pools[2,3], and how they fit into the lake/pond >>> definitions. >>> >>> I've come up with the following text: >>> >>> "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool, >>> which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the >>> waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually) >>> pond if they are named or significant in size, or else they can be simply >>> conflated with the river." >>> >>> Is this distinction satisfactory? How are folks tagging these features? >>> >>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir >>>
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 22:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 22. Dec 2020, at 06:49, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > > water=stream_pool > > isn’t this an oxymoron? > How so? It's a body of water so therefore water=*. It's usually a pool of water along a stream, so the name stream_pool. Usually here they are just named as "X Pool" but stream pool seems to be the general name based on wikipedia usage. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 21:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: I don't think I've had the situation come up, but if it did, I'd probably > map the riverbank only once, and split the river at the fall and at the > outlet of the pool. Do the ordinary waterway=riverbank or water=river > mapping for the river as a whole, and create a multipolygon (probably > tagged natural=water water=pond) to represent the pool. > > I've seen only one plunge pool. And that was dammed to turn it into a mill pond. But I've seen many stream pools that I've yet to map properly. They're usually named, because they are of significance to anglers or boat builders. It's easier to do it your way, unless you want to name the pool. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:51, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > >> I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a >> river. The >> disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name >> assigned. >> > > Sorry, my words were not clear enough here. By "conflate" I mean that the > pool would simply be part of the river polygon. See this example near > Boston: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91082432#map=16/42.2615/-71.2764 > I knew what you meant by "conflate." Others may not. > > Note that I explicitly included the phrase "if they are named or > significant in size" to cover the case where a stream pool has a name. My > intent is to craft the definition in such a way that it allows either > scheme without preference (i.e. part of the river polygon, or a separate > pond/lake polygon with a name). > It feels more natural to map a side pool of a wide river which has a river polygon by expanding the polygon. But such a pool cannot be named. It feels unnatural to tack a pond onto the side of a river polygon. But I suppose it will work. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano > wrote: > >> >> "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool, >> which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the >> waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually) >> pond if they are named or significant in size, or else they can be simply >> conflated with the river." >> > > I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a > river. The > disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name assigned. > > Also, there are tidal pools (which may be outside the scope of the > proposal). > > Is this distinction satisfactory? How are folks tagging these features? >> > > I've been tagging them as ponds, for lack of anything better. Well, > until a few days ago I didn't realize the distinction between ponds > and pools so I was tagging them as ponds because I didn't know > they weren't ponds but pools. If I'd had to map bigger ones > I'd have tagged them as lakes. > > I've been tagging them as `natural=water`. :) Or maybe `waterway=riverbank.`. In the karst terrain around here, you sometimes have to do more geologic investigation than I have time for to determine what's actually retaining the water in a waterbody, and there are plenty for which the distinctions are unclear anyway. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226924460 appears in origin to be a glacial tarn. It has an outflow stream, but the majority of the water exits through percolation (there's no identified sinkhole) into the caves beneath, and tracers injected into the water have appeared in several of the stream outlets below the cliffs https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/595609787. In a dry summer, the outflow stream may stop flowing entirely, but the lake never dries up. So is that a tarn, or a doline, or (considering that humans have actually dammed the outflow stream in an effort to preserve the boating value of the lake) a reservoir? Frankly, I don't care very much. I have no ambition to produce a detailed map of the local surface geology, which is horrendously complicated. It's a permanent body of fresh water, navigable by pleasure boats. If someone else wants to try to fill in the geologic details, be my guest! I might tag as `waterway=riverbank` (the commonest usage around here) if there's no good reason not to keep the plunge pool separate from the river, as at the base of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5844315874. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
> I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a > river. The > disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name assigned. > Sorry, my words were not clear enough here. By "conflate" I mean that the pool would simply be part of the river polygon. See this example near Boston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91082432#map=16/42.2615/-71.2764 Note that I explicitly included the phrase "if they are named or significant in size" to cover the case where a stream pool has a name. My intent is to craft the definition in such a way that it allows either scheme without preference (i.e. part of the river polygon, or a separate pond/lake polygon with a name). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool, > which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the > waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually) > pond if they are named or significant in size, or else they can be simply > conflated with the river." > I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a river. The disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name assigned. Also, there are tidal pools (which may be outside the scope of the proposal). Is this distinction satisfactory? How are folks tagging these features? > I've been tagging them as ponds, for lack of anything better. Well, until a few days ago I didn't realize the distinction between ponds and pools so I was tagging them as ponds because I didn't know they weren't ponds but pools. If I'd had to map bigger ones I'd have tagged them as lakes. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools
Discussion on the current reservoir proposal[1] (which seeks to define the distinction between reservoirs, lakes, and ponds) has brought up the question of stream/plunge pools[2,3], and how they fit into the lake/pond definitions. I've come up with the following text: "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool, which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually) pond if they are named or significant in size, or else they can be simply conflated with the river." Is this distinction satisfactory? How are folks tagging these features? [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_pool [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
