Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-24 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

2020-12-24 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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

2020-12-24 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-23 Thread stevea
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

2020-12-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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

2020-12-23 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

2020-12-23 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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

2020-12-23 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

2020-12-23 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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

2020-12-23 Thread stevea
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

2020-12-23 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

2020-12-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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

2020-12-23 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-22 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

2020-12-22 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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

2020-12-22 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
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

2020-12-22 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

2020-12-21 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-21 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-21 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

2020-12-21 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
> 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

2020-12-21 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-21 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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