Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
If anyone wants to map beaver dams, I would suggest natural=beaver_dam
since this would use a common key ("natural") rather than inventing a new
one.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 11:10 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> beaver_made = dam ?
>
> On 14.11.2020 04:02, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco  > wrote:
> >
> >   * origination:natural=beavers
> >
> > Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant
> sculpting force on the
> > landscape.
> >
> > (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water
> control structures, which are
> > also often adjusted seasonally)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Tom Pfeifer

beaver_made = dam ?

On 14.11.2020 04:02, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco mailto:adamfra...@gmail.com>> wrote:

  * origination:natural=beavers

Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant sculpting force on the 
landscape.


(And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water control structures, which are 
also often adjusted seasonally)


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Nov 2020, at 08:05, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
[canal areas]
> There was never a standard way to tag this before


I thought it was waterway=riverbank?

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Steve Doerr

On 12/11/2020 01:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

if a reservoir is thought to be larger and must have a dam on one side


That's certainly not implicit in the use of the word in British English. 
Some reservoirs are formed by damming a river, but most are not like that.


--
Steve

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Nov 2020, at 04:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Around here, beavers are a significant sculpting force on the landscape.
> 
> (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water control 
> structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally) 


frankly, tagging beaver made structures as man_made=dam (or waterway=dam) feels 
like tagging model / rc airplane strips as airports. Or adding railway=station 
objects to a model railway

I guess you meant waterway? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddam



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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread stevea
Joseph, Kevin, Paul, Clifford, Martin, Peter, Tom, Brian, Andy, 
Graeme...everybody else here:  I love these conversations, thank you.
SteveA

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate on the large..small
and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes and a farmer's stock
pond, where the `water=*` value would be uncontroversial."

water=canal is the consensus tag for the area of a canal. There was never a
standard way to tag this before, so I would strongly recommend adding this
tag for all canals when mapped as an area with natural=water. Similarly,
water=lock is uncontroversial and widely used.

While there is still some controversy about using water=river +
natural=water instead of waterway=riverbank for the area of a river, it is
uncontroversial that you should certainly add  water=river if you are using
natural=water in this case.

The same thing goes for reservoirs and basins: you can also use
landuse=basin or landuse=reservoir, but if you map them with natural=water
it is very helpful to use water=basin or water=reservoir

Those values account for most of the uses of water=*... except for
water=pond, which is where we started.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:05 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>>
>>- origination:natural=beavers
>>
>> Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant
> sculpting force on the landscape.
>
> (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water
> control structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally)
>
> Very long story short, I think we might be able to worry a little less
>> about what the body of still water *is* and more about its other
>> properties that might be of interest. In programming languages this is
>> referred to as "duck typing ".
>>
>
> If ducks could type, I could easily imagine that a pond might be mapped
> and the tags entered by a duck typing. I think that the duck in question
> might be Atwood's Duck.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality#Related_principles_and_formulations
>
> And ... having seen this argument several times before, I basically avoid
> `water=*` when mapping. I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate
> on the large..small and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes
> and a farmer's stock pond, where the `water=*` value would be
> uncontroversial. `natural=water` renders, and I'll try to avoid taking a
> census of the angels dancing on that particular pinhead.
>
> This whole discussion reminds me of one time that someone who wasn't from
> around here (nor a native speaker) was insisting that anything that was
> called a 'creek' in English *must* be a tiny watercourse.  Not around here!
> The creek in question was, if memory serves, either the Schoharie Creek,
> shown in this picture:
> http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/images/schoharie_falls.jpg or
> else the West Canada Creek
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Canada_Creek#/media/File:Aug_2011_Ft_Noble_Mtn.JPG
> I'm comfortable with `waterway=river` on any waterway where I map the
> riverbank.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Re: is water=* tag needed?

>>>
>>>
 But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
 man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
 providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
 distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
 database quality.

>>>
>>> We often do not know if it is natural or artificial.  Maybe it's a
>>> natural
>>> depression in the ground that fills with water.  Maybe it was created
>>> by man as a water feature.  Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded.
>>> Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may
>>> have
>>> happened so long ago that there are no records.
>>>
>>> What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria
>>> for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a
>>> pond.  In principle, a suitably-qualified mapper could investigate
>>> those things on site.  We can accept using guesswork based on
>>> size pending fuller investigation. A lake/pond distinction is
>>> useful irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or entirely
>>> artificial.
>>>
>>> Determining if it's entirely natural, or deliberately man-made, or
>>> an unintended consequence of past human activity is harder.
>>> Possible for retention basins that are still in use.  Mostly
>>> possible for reservoirs, although some reservoirs are
>>> based around natural lakes.  But historical records are
>>> incomplete (and some mappers insist we should never
>>> ever make use of historical data to inform our mapping).
>>>
>>> Maybe we need an artificial=yes/no.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> 

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

>
>- origination:natural=beavers
>
> Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant
sculpting force on the landscape.

(And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water
control structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally)

Very long story short, I think we might be able to worry a little less
> about what the body of still water *is* and more about its other
> properties that might be of interest. In programming languages this is
> referred to as "duck typing ".
>

If ducks could type, I could easily imagine that a pond might be mapped and
the tags entered by a duck typing. I think that the duck in question might
be Atwood's Duck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality#Related_principles_and_formulations

And ... having seen this argument several times before, I basically avoid
`water=*` when mapping. I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate
on the large..small and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes
and a farmer's stock pond, where the `water=*` value would be
uncontroversial. `natural=water` renders, and I'll try to avoid taking a
census of the angels dancing on that particular pinhead.

This whole discussion reminds me of one time that someone who wasn't from
around here (nor a native speaker) was insisting that anything that was
called a 'creek' in English *must* be a tiny watercourse.  Not around here!
The creek in question was, if memory serves, either the Schoharie Creek,
shown in this picture:
http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/images/schoharie_falls.jpg or else
the West Canada Creek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Canada_Creek#/media/File:Aug_2011_Ft_Noble_Mtn.JPG
I'm comfortable with `waterway=river` on any waterway where I map the
riverbank.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Re: is water=* tag needed?
>>>
>>
>>
>>> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
>>> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
>>> providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
>>> distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
>>> database quality.
>>>
>>
>> We often do not know if it is natural or artificial.  Maybe it's a natural
>> depression in the ground that fills with water.  Maybe it was created
>> by man as a water feature.  Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded.
>> Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may have
>> happened so long ago that there are no records.
>>
>> What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria
>> for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a
>> pond.  In principle, a suitably-qualified mapper could investigate
>> those things on site.  We can accept using guesswork based on
>> size pending fuller investigation. A lake/pond distinction is
>> useful irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or entirely
>> artificial.
>>
>> Determining if it's entirely natural, or deliberately man-made, or
>> an unintended consequence of past human activity is harder.
>> Possible for retention basins that are still in use.  Mostly
>> possible for reservoirs, although some reservoirs are
>> based around natural lakes.  But historical records are
>> incomplete (and some mappers insist we should never
>> ever make use of historical data to inform our mapping).
>>
>> Maybe we need an artificial=yes/no.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-13 Thread Peter Elderson
Ah, profiling! Hadn't thought of that yet.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 13 nov. 2020 om 10:18 schreef Michael Patrick :

>
> I am surprised nobody has suggested a pondness or lakicity scale yet.
>>
>
> It isn't unusual outside of OSM for relative percentages of the different
> meanings to be accounted for. For example for Great Pond (
> https://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=44.5=-69.8=nad83=16
> ) with a surface area of 13 square miles
>
> lake 15%
> reservoir 84%   ( volume added to the original lake by the dam )
> pond 1%
>
>
>
> <#m_2101975028351855335_m_-6680278241776399936_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-13 Thread Michael Patrick
> I am surprised nobody has suggested a pondness or lakicity scale yet.
>

It isn't unusual outside of OSM for relative percentages of the different
meanings to be accounted for. For example for Great Pond (
https://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=44.5=-69.8=nad83=16
) with a surface area of 13 square miles

lake 15%
reservoir 84%   ( volume added to the original lake by the dam )
pond 1%


<#m_-6680278241776399936_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Adam Franco
I'm wondering if rather than deprecating water=pond, it would be better to
keep it as a value with overlapping usage to lake (like river/stream) and
instead focus tagging on the actual differences between different bodies of
water.

I'd suggest two new tags that get at the heart of what I've been hearing
people suggesting as distinctions between all these water-bodies other than
size, their origin (natural or human-made) and whether they are naturally
flowing at their outlets, have human-created outlet controls, or no outlet
(in the case of endorheic basins
 or some quarries):

   - origination=natural/artificial
   - outlet_control=natural/artificial/no-outlet

*(I wanted to use "origin", but that is currently used for goods from
shops.)*

These could of course be sub-tagged if desired to add more specificity.
Examples:

   - origination:natural=glaciation
   - origination:natural=landslide (if a natural dam was formed by a
   landslide)
   - origination:natural=beavers
   - origination:artificial=quarry
   - outlet_control:natural=bedrock
   - outlet_control:natural=soil
   - outlet_control:natural=beavers

Here are a few examples of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs that I'm familiar
with that seem useful for this discussion:

*Abbey Pond, Middlebury, Vermont*: OSM
,
photo 
This pond appears to have been scoured out during the last glaciation
period and drains over a hard-rock ledge. It appears to not be very deep,
but the presence of the ledge ensures that this pond will exist until
silted in or the land is re-formed by glaciers. At the same time, beaver
activity just upstream of the rock-ledge has raised the water level by 1-2
meters. This I would tag as:

   - water=pond
   - origination=natural
   - origination:natural=glaciation
   - outlet_control=natural
   - outlet_control:natural=beavers

*Crystal Lake, Beulah, Michigan:* OSM
, photo
, outlet dam photo

This large 3-mile x 9-mile lake was scoured out alongside Lake Michigan
during the last glaciation period. It's origin is very natural. It's water
level sat about 43 feet higher than Lake Michigan until 1873 when an
attempt at digging a transportation canal spectacularly failed dropped the
lake level by about 20'. (source 1
,
source
2
).
Today the lake-level is controlled by an artificial outlet dam

(really a weir) with its level changed seasonally. While this is by every
definition a naturally formed lake, it is today controlled by humans.

   - water=lake
   - origination=natural
   - origination:natural=glaciation
   - outlet_control=artificial
   - outlet_control:artificial=weir

A decorative human-made pond that empties over a rocky berm with no
operable level-control structures might be tagged with

   - water=pond
   - origination=artificial
   - outlet_control=natural

A totally natural lake with no human intervention might be:

   - water=lake
   - origination=natural
   - outlet_control=natural
   - outlet_control:natural=bedrock

Very long story short, I think we might be able to worry a little less
about what the body of still water *is* and more about its other properties
that might be of interest. In programming languages this is referred
to as "duck
typing ".


On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Re: is water=* tag needed?
>>
>
>
>> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
>> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
>> providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
>> distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
>> database quality.
>>
>
> We often do not know if it is natural or artificial.  Maybe it's a natural
> depression in the ground that fills with water.  Maybe it was created
> by man as a water feature.  Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded.
> Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may have
> happened so long ago that there are no records.
>
> What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria
> for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a
> 

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Paul Allen
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Re: is water=* tag needed?
>


> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
> providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
> distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
> database quality.
>

We often do not know if it is natural or artificial.  Maybe it's a natural
depression in the ground that fills with water.  Maybe it was created
by man as a water feature.  Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded.
Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may have
happened so long ago that there are no records.

What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria
for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a
pond.  In principle, a suitably-qualified mapper could investigate
those things on site.  We can accept using guesswork based on
size pending fuller investigation. A lake/pond distinction is
useful irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or entirely
artificial.

Determining if it's entirely natural, or deliberately man-made, or
an unintended consequence of past human activity is harder.
Possible for retention basins that are still in use.  Mostly
possible for reservoirs, although some reservoirs are
based around natural lakes.  But historical records are
incomplete (and some mappers insist we should never
ever make use of historical data to inform our mapping).

Maybe we need an artificial=yes/no.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: is water=* tag needed?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:36 AM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:
> "Is a water= tag even needed at all in these cases then? natural=water +
name="Foobar Pond" seems to cover it.  I'm not sure what specific added
information is conveyed by "lake", "pond", or even "lake_pond".  It's a
natural body of water with a name.  If we need tagging to indicate
freshwater vs brackish vs saltwater, or depth, or murkiness, those seem
like separate tags.

>
> > "I think the question here isn't if pond makes sense for data consumers.
Mappers are what matters in this case. If there is a little 4 meter pond,
mappers will not tag it as a lake because it sounds wrong. So they will
probably tag it just natural=water. But then we lose information about if
it is a little lake, a reservoir, a fountain or a wastewater dump. That's
why we need the pond."

So originally all lakes and semi-natural ponds were tagged just
natural=water, while reservoirs were landuse=reservoir,
retention/detention/infiltration basins were landuse=basin, the area of
 rivers was mapped with waterway=riverbank. And then, as now
leisure=swimming_pool was used for swimming pools, while seas and coastal
waters were delimited with natural=coastline ways (as they still are). Salt
ponds could be mapped with landuse=salt_pond.

This meant that there were separate tags for seas and marine water (all
areas outside of the coastline), for natural inland still water
(natural=water), man-made still water features (landuse=reservoir / =basin
/ =salt_pond), and for rivers (waterway=riverbank) - which are natural
flowing watercourses.

But there wasn't a clear way to map the area of a canal or ditch: an
artificial area of flowing water, so the tagging system was missing one
ingredient.

Some mappers used waterway=riverbank since canals are similar to rivers,
while others used natural=water even though this was for lakes.

Instead of making a new tag for canals or ditches or drains, its was
proposed to just use natural=water for all inland water areas, including
rivers, canals, reservoirs, and basins, with the addition of the tag
water=* to describe the type of water area. This was somewhat
controversial, since it meant mapping man-made watercourses and waterbodies
under natural=* but it was approved:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details (Apparently
this was already in use in Russia before it was adopted by the global
community?)

Now the proposal had a couple problems: it suggested water=cove and
water=lagoon for areas which are clearly outside of the coastline and part
of the marine water system, but in practice this has not happened,
natural=bay has been used for these areas instead of natural=water, so the
distinction between marine and inland water has remained mostly clear
(except in the difficult situation of estuaries).

But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly
distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for
database quality.

I wish it was possible to just redefine water=pond as "a man-made pond",
but since this is not likely to succeed, we should provide clear
alternatives.

Of course it will remain possible to just use natural=water with no
additional tag, if it's not known whether an inland body of still water is
man-made or natural.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Janko Mihelić
I think the question here isn't if pond makes sense for data consumers.
Mappers are what matters in this case. If there is a little 4 meter pond,
mappers will not tag it as a lake because it sounds wrong. So they will
probably tag it just natural=water. But then we lose information about if
it is a little lake, a reservoir, a fountain or a wastewater dump. That's
why we need the pond.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Yes, it matters if it's flowing water, because rivers/streams (and
artificial waterways like canals, ditches and drains) are clearly distinct
from standing water bodies like lakes, reservoirs and basins. This is a
clearly observable difference which local mappers can survey.

Currently a number of map styles render flowing water (rivers, streams and
canals) differently than standing inland water or sea water.

Database users might want to calculate the total area of streams and rivers
in a country, and compare it to the total area of standing inland waters.
They also might want to compare the number or size of natural water bodies
to the number or size of artificial water bodies.

Since the difference between these is usually observable and verifiable, we
should have tags available that mappers can use.

Of course there will always be edge cases where it can be hard to decide if
a certain water body is a small natural lake or a semi-artificial pond, but
in that case mappers can just use natural=water without a water=* tag.

There are also edge-cases between rivers and estuaries at the junction with
the sea, and we should probably decide on a way to map this, but that's for
another time. Suffice to say that 99% of the time it's obvious if an area
of water is a flowing river vs a still-water lake. And similarly, canals
can usually be clearly distinguished from rivers based on their appearance,
and local knowledge of residents of the area.

So we should make sure our tagging distinguishes sea water from inland
still waters and flowing rivers, and also distinguish artificial from
natural water bodies and watercourses

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:50 AM OSM  wrote:

>
>
> Am 11.11.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> > I am getting a foot vs hiking feeling. Everybody knows a difference,
> > nobody has the same difference. In the end, it does not matter.
>
> Hmm - does it matter, if it is a river or a stream or a lake or a pond?
> Especially a lake with a river flowing through?
> Or is it not all and everything only water - and a name somewhere ...
> Why does the water=* tag exist anyway? To distinguish between flowing
> and standing waters? Don't say so - see above.
>
> --
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Is a water= tag even needed at all in these cases then? natural=water +
name="Foobar Pond" seems to cover it.  I'm not sure what specific added
information is conveyed by "lake", "pond", or even "lake_pond".  It's a
natural body of water with a name.  If we need tagging to indicate
freshwater vs brackish vs saltwater, or depth, or murkiness, those seem
like separate tags.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 12:26 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Out of curiosity I decided to look at how USGS defines lakes and ponds
> after noticing that their Feature Code is listed as lake/pond. Here is how
> they define the two, as well as rivers and streams and mountains and hills.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *There are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to
> geographic features. Any existing definitions derive from the needs and
> applications of organizations using those geographic features. The
> Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database utilizes 63 broad
> categories of feature types defined solely to facilitate retrieval of
> entries with similar characteristics from the database.These categories
> generally match dictionary definitions, but not always. The differences are
> thematic and highly subjective. For example, a lake is classified in the
> GNIS as a "natural body of inland water”, which is a feature description
> that can also apply to a reservoir, a pond, or a pool. All "linear flowing
> bodies of water" are classified as streams in the GNIS. At least 121 other
> generic terms fit this broad category, including creeks and rivers. Some
> might contend that a creek must flow into a river, but such hierarchies do
> not exist in the nation's namescape. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names
> once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain was 1,000
> feet of local relief, but this was abandoned in the early 1970s. Broad
> agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there
> are no official feature classification standards.*
>
>
> I think they are smart to not try to classify lakes and ponds separately.
> Back to the original discussion started by Joseph Eisenberg, I'd be in
> favor of just using water=lake/pond or water=lake_pond.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Clifford Snow
Out of curiosity I decided to look at how USGS defines lakes and ponds
after noticing that their Feature Code is listed as lake/pond. Here is how
they define the two, as well as rivers and streams and mountains and hills.







*There are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to
geographic features. Any existing definitions derive from the needs and
applications of organizations using those geographic features. The
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database utilizes 63 broad
categories of feature types defined solely to facilitate retrieval of
entries with similar characteristics from the database.These categories
generally match dictionary definitions, but not always. The differences are
thematic and highly subjective. For example, a lake is classified in the
GNIS as a "natural body of inland water”, which is a feature description
that can also apply to a reservoir, a pond, or a pool. All "linear flowing
bodies of water" are classified as streams in the GNIS. At least 121 other
generic terms fit this broad category, including creeks and rivers. Some
might contend that a creek must flow into a river, but such hierarchies do
not exist in the nation's namescape. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names
once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain was 1,000
feet of local relief, but this was abandoned in the early 1970s. Broad
agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there
are no official feature classification standards.*


I think they are smart to not try to classify lakes and ponds separately.
Back to the original discussion started by Joseph Eisenberg, I'd be in
favor of just using water=lake/pond or water=lake_pond.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?"

Most of those are landuse=basin (or water=basin + natural=water if you
prefer the newer tagging scheme), and while they are not exactly for
"storing water", they might be for "preventing flooding", or "temporarily
holding excess water" or "permanently holding waste water."

I believe a landuse=reservoir or water=reservoid feature is going to
presumed to have a dam at one end which was built to keep in the water.

Flooded quarries and old mines are an interesting exception. I suppose a
old pit mine is not exactly a reservoir in the common understanding,
because the hole in the ground was built to remove minerals, and usually it
only fills up with water after the mining activity is finished and pumps to
extract water are turned off; there is usually no dam (though sometimes a
dam might be built later to prevent flooding).

It's also not exactly a landuse=basin because  the hole in the ground was
not made to hold water.

Perhaps water=quarry or something like that would be helpful, when it's
obvious that the water feature is an abandoned open pit mine or quarry.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
>> body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
>> as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement.
>>
>> The current problem with water=pond is that many are completely natural
>> features, but almost all other values of water=* are clearly natural (or
>> semi-natural), or clearly artificial, so water=pond is losing this
>> information which otherwise should be conveyed by the key water=*.
>>
>
>
> water=lake does not tell you about it being "natural" or not either. I am
> not sure what the term "natural" means. If a woman makes a depression in
> the terrain, and it automatically fills up with (surface or ground) water
> because of the geological conditions, is this "natural" or not? What about
> a woman sealing the terrain and conducting water to a place where there
> wasn't a water body before?
>
> This is a flooded open pit mine, is it "natural" or not, and if not, what
> would be the osm tag for it? water=lake, natural=no?
> https://www.lmbv.de/files/LMBV/Fotos/Nachrichten/Archivierte%20Nachrichtenfotos/LMBV_1616.jpg
>
> What about a lake without water (drained)? Is "lake" a term that can only
> be used for water bodies, or are dry lakes ok? Example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/41.9975/13.5625 (everything
> "yellow" is a lake / former lake (actually third largest lake in Italy):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucine_Lake
>
>
>> - water=fountain
>> - water=fishpond
>>
>
>
> -1 to "fishpond". It is not defined in the wiki, and is discouraged as
> likely a mistake: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water (and I
> agree it is not good). You can have fish in many kinds of water bodies, I
> just recently started to add fish=yes to fountains when there are fish
> inside.
>
>
>>
>> And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A reservoir
>>  or an artificial lake is used
>> to store water. )
>>
>
>
> what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
> body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
> as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement.
>
> The current problem with water=pond is that many are completely natural
> features, but almost all other values of water=* are clearly natural (or
> semi-natural), or clearly artificial, so water=pond is losing this
> information which otherwise should be conveyed by the key water=*.
>


water=lake does not tell you about it being "natural" or not either. I am
not sure what the term "natural" means. If a woman makes a depression in
the terrain, and it automatically fills up with (surface or ground) water
because of the geological conditions, is this "natural" or not? What about
a woman sealing the terrain and conducting water to a place where there
wasn't a water body before?

This is a flooded open pit mine, is it "natural" or not, and if not, what
would be the osm tag for it? water=lake, natural=no?
https://www.lmbv.de/files/LMBV/Fotos/Nachrichten/Archivierte%20Nachrichtenfotos/LMBV_1616.jpg

What about a lake without water (drained)? Is "lake" a term that can only
be used for water bodies, or are dry lakes ok? Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/41.9975/13.5625 (everything "yellow"
is a lake / former lake (actually third largest lake in Italy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucine_Lake


> - water=fountain
> - water=fishpond
>


-1 to "fishpond". It is not defined in the wiki, and is discouraged as
likely a mistake: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water (and I
agree it is not good). You can have fish in many kinds of water bodies, I
just recently started to add fish=yes to fountains when there are fish
inside.


>
> And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A reservoir
>  or an artificial lake is used
> to store water. )
>


what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread OSM



Am 11.11.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Peter Elderson:
I am getting a foot vs hiking feeling. Everybody knows a difference, 
nobody has the same difference. In the end, it does not matter.


Hmm - does it matter, if it is a river or a stream or a lake or a pond?
Especially a lake with a river flowing through?
Or is it not all and everything only water - and a name somewhere ...
Why does the water=* tag exist anyway? To distinguish between flowing 
and standing waters? Don't say so - see above.


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


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread stevea
nathan case wrote:
Not only is this often incredibly difficult to verify, it also leads to this 
complex situation of needing multiple tags for what are, essentially, the same 
features.

A well-designed tagging scheme (doesn’t have to be a formal proposal, but 
benefits greatly by being dressed up as one) allows us, as other tagging 
schemes do, to apply tags sparsely if only sparse details are known about a 
feature to be mapped.  If greater detail is known, the syntax structure 
specifies how to denote it.  That’s an excellent example of one important part 
of good syntax design.

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread nathan case
I strongly disagree with the notion of splitting ponds and lakes by natural or 
artificial/man-made.

Not only is this often incredibly difficult to verify, it also leads to this 
complex situation of needing multiple tags for what are, essentially, the same 
features.

The current notion of an artificial/man-made lake being a reservoir is 
non-sense. Artificial lakes are still lakes. Additionally, not all reservoirs 
are artificial – some are natural.

Best.

From: Joseph Eisenberg 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:30 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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

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

And as mentioned before, there are water=reservoir (A 
reservoir<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir> or an artificial lake is 
used to store water. ) and water=basin (An area of land artificially graded to 
hold water.)

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

-- Joseph Eisenberg


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Peter Elderson
I am surprised nobody has suggested a pondness or lakicity scale yet.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 12 nov. 2020 om 02:46 schreef stevea :

> If we're going to do "this:"
> > So perhaps we could create a new tag water=natural_pond for small,
> natural or semi-natural lakes which are currently tagged as water=pond, and
> water=artificial_pond or water=man_made_pond for the majority of water=pond
> features which are clearly not natural, such as ponds in gardens.
>
> it seems we should ponder (sorry, couldn't resist) the myriad
> possibilities for ponds both artificial AND natural and make a formal
> proposal that "covers all cases," at least as best we can in a formal
> proposal.  This would clarify (sorry, couldn't resist) what they're all
> "used for," as in settling in the case of a wastewater treatment plant,
> decorative as in somebody's backyard garden, natural, as in "shallow,
> nature-created, not-deep-enough to be called lake..." and so on.  Don't
> forget to consider (and document) potential overlap with things like
> leisure=swimming_pool and possibly others.
>
> We might get a good start on doing this in a talk page, but I think it
> would greatly benefit from the thought that goes into a formal proposal:
> worldwide consideration of the semantic space being described, rather clear
> syntax and namespaces described, how to decide one from the other,
> linguistic differences (as Joseph mentioned there can be a flattening in
> particular languages that might deserve extra clarity), how to migrate from
> existing tagging to the proposed tagging, and all the rest that formal
> proposals treat (what wiki need to update, et cetera).
>
> I admire Joseph's "tossing here" what he wrote, as it gets things started,
> but I believe the subject is much richer than this.
>
> It would also focus efforts by those who care and in as much detail and in
> one place as such a specific topic deserves.  While I don't write this to
> discourage posts to this list (I don't, as this list is a valuable place to
> discuss), I have also noticed a trend towards formal proposals.  "Ponds"
> seems like an excellent candidate for one.
>
> SteveA
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Joseph Eisenberg


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Tom Pfeifer

On 10.11.2020 10:56, Andy Mabbett wrote:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Against deprecation of 'pond'.

tom

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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



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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

Best, Peter Elderson


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

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>
>> Everybody knows a difference,
>>
>
> If "everybody knows it", then let's define what that difference is and
> write it down.  That is why this list exists.  It is a bad idea to presume
> that different cultures and languages share a common understanding and
> terminology.  The reason we are even discussing this in the first place is
> precisely because the difference between pond and lake is not universally
> clear.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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


> Everybody knows a difference,
>

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

> Maybe there is no clear-cut between a lake and a pond - but for me there
> is at least a clear impression by size of a pond or a lake beyond the
> transition zone.
> I never would call a natural small water or a 'Gartenteich' (garden
> pond) a lake.
>
> --
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

Mvg Peter Elderson

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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


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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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


the lake size is determined also by its depth

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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


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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Alessandro Sarretta

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


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


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


Ale


--

Alessandro Sarretta

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

Research information:

 * Google scholar profile
   
 * ORCID 
 * Research Gate 
 * Impactstory 

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

See, for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Chris Hill

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


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


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


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


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


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


-- Joseph Eisenberg
--


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


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


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

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


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


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-10 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

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

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

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-10 Thread nathan case
Agreed: it is often not possible to tell  if a pond/lake is artificial or not. 
Some lakes are hundreds of years old and the environment has adapted to now 
appear as though it were a natural feature.

Reservoir does not seem appropriate for an artificial pond. In my experience, 
reservoirs are large and tend to store water for either consumption or to 
generate power. Ponds can range from something in one’s back garden, to 
substantial bodies of water in parks and nature reserves. Basin doesn’t seem to 
fit with these either (they appear to be more for temporary storage of water?).

It seems that requiring “lake” to be natural is the issue. Lakes can be both 
natural and artificially made. If we could tag “ponds” as “lakes” and then add 
a tag “lake=pond” that would allow some freedom for the mapper. However, it 
appears that there is a willingness to separate “natural” and “artificial”/”man 
made” features.

Best.

From: Peter Elderson 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:49 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

The problem is that natural and artificial are not neatly separated IRL. In 
Nederland, nature is neatly cut, shaven and shaped. Currently, natural style is 
preferred. "New nature" is the hype, where heavy machinery creates new 
landscapes including ponds, lakes, streams and wetlands. Sea dykes are shaped 
like dunes. Etc. So every pond is made to look natural, and every lake is 
reshaped and maintained.

We have words for pond ("vijver") and lake ("meer") but very loosely defined, 
and many more terms for other bodies of water.

I think a clearcut definition would not help at all in this case.

Peter Elderson


Op 10 nov. 2020 om 06:30 heeft Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> het volgende 
geschreven:

The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of "water=*" in 
2011, but it has a poorly defined description.

"A pond<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pond>: a body of standing water, man-made 
in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake. Salt evaporation ponds 
should be tagged with 
landuse<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=salt_pond<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dsalt_pond>,
 open-air swimming pools — with 
leisure<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure>=swimming_pool<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool>."

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

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

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

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

-- Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Peter Elderson
The problem is that natural and artificial are not neatly separated IRL. In 
Nederland, nature is neatly cut, shaven and shaped. Currently, natural style is 
preferred. "New nature" is the hype, where heavy machinery creates new 
landscapes including ponds, lakes, streams and wetlands. Sea dykes are shaped 
like dunes. Etc. So every pond is made to look natural, and every lake is 
reshaped and maintained. 

We have words for pond ("vijver") and lake ("meer") but very loosely defined, 
and many more terms for other bodies of water. 

I think a clearcut definition would not help at all in this case.

Peter Elderson

> Op 10 nov. 2020 om 06:30 heeft Joseph Eisenberg  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of "water=*" 
> in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description. 
> 
> "A pond: a body of standing water, man-made in most cases, that is usually 
> smaller than a lake. Salt evaporation ponds should be tagged with 
> landuse=salt_pond, open-air swimming pools — with leisure=swimming_pool."
> 
> So it might be artificial, like a landuse=reservoir or water=reservoir, but 
> smallish. Or it might be natural like a water=lake, but smallish. However, 
> nothing on the water=lake page defines a lower limit for the size of a lake.
> 
> This is a shame, because all the other values of water=* are clearly defined 
> as only natural, or only artificial, and waterway=* features are also clearly 
> divided. Furthermore, the original lags landuse=reservoir and landuse=basin 
> were also clearly artificial, while lakes were natural.
> 
> But the biggest problem is that there is no way to define a lower size for a 
> lake or reservoir, or an upper size for a pond. And the size of the area is 
> easier available from the geometry of the feature, so it doesn't need to be 
> mentioned in the tag. 
> 
> I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using 
> water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or 
> water=basin (or landuse=reservoir or =basin if you prefer) for the artificial 
> ones. 
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Alessandro Sarretta

Hi,

I don't agree with the deprecation of water=pond. I find it perfect for 
small body of water like the ones you can see here for cows watering: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301144562


Ale

On 10/11/20 06:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of 
"water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description.


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


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


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


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


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


-- Joseph Eisenberg

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

--
--

Alessandro Sarretta

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

Research information:

 * Google scholar profile
   
 * ORCID 
 * Research Gate 
 * Impactstory 

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
I normally use the name of the body of water, e.g. Foo Pond gets water=pond
and Bar Lake gets water=lake.  It's not clear to me that they have a
distinction beyond customary naming, and in my area there are ponds bigger
than lakes, though usually the lakes are larger.  If there is no
distinction beyond size, I agree that these tags are redundant, much in the
way that place=island and place=islet are: the comparative size can be
obtained from the geometry.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:30 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using
> water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones,
>

No, I don't agree, sorry.

Same as the difference between rivers & streams, there is a difference
between lakes & ponds (actually due to teh depth, not teh size!), so we
should keep them both.

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of
"water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description.

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

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

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

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

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

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