Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 15:25, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Thanks for the pointer, but It does not help. I'm an iD occasional basic
> user only.
>

Ah.  I thought one of your main gripes was the iD was warning you about
stuff
you weren't editing.

I am talking about the behaviour of JOSM.
>

I'm in the reverse position to you: I use JOSM occasionally, mainly for
splitting areas (there are large woods around here with named portions
that have been mapped as one big wood) which iD doesn't appear to
have any way of doing.

Maybe I am also JOSM ignorant regarding its functionalities.
>

If it isn't built-in functionality then there's probably a module to
do what you want.  And if there isn't a module, I expect one could
be written.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Volker Schmidt]

Thanks for the pointer, but It does not help. I'm an iD occasional basic
user only.
I am talking about the behaviour of JOSM.
Maybe I am also JOSM ignorant regarding its functionalities.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 14:56, Paul Allen via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>> That we will have to live with two tags, or more,  for the same thing is
>> nothing new, what I don't like is to be pestered continuously to do things
>> to objects that happen to be in my downloaded area, and which I had no
>> intention even to look at.
>>
>
> If you open iD's issue inspector you have the choice of "My edits" or
> "Everything."  You also have the choice of "In view" or "Everywhere."  Does
> that help?
>
> --
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Paul Allen via Tagging]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> That we will have to live with two tags, or more,  for the same thing is
> nothing new, what I don't like is to be pestered continuously to do things
> to objects that happen to be in my downloaded area, and which I had no
> intention even to look at.
>

If you open iD's issue inspector you have the choice of "My edits" or
"Everything."  You also have the choice of "In view" or "Everywhere."  Does
that help?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-12-21, pr, 11:02 Volker Schmidt rašė:
> Mass deprecations are counter-productive in general and independently of 
> whether they the new tagging is better in some way..

  +1

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Volker Schmidt]

Yep.
I know that.
But for the tag to be on the deprecated tag list, it has to be deprecated
in the wiki, I presume at least. That is my point. I don't think that JOSM
will flag it deprecated because ID deprecated it, while the wiki still has
it as a valid tag.
That we will have to live with two tags, or more,  for the same thing is
nothing new, what I don't like is to be pestered continuously to do things
to objects that happen to be in my downloaded area, and which I had no
intention even to look at.
Mass deprecations are counter-productive in general and independently of
whether they the new tagging is better in some way..


On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 16:59, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:29, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, please consider that deprecated features are being flagged
>> by editor sw on
>>
> saving any changeet that contains an deprecated tag, even if it has
>> nothing to do
>>
> with your actual editing, this would be adding another contnued nuisance
>> for mappers
>>
> (there are already others opf that type).
>>
>
>> Please don't do it
>>
>
> Too late, at least for iD.  Its authors have already decided to deprecate
> landuse=reservoir.  All this proposal does is document the fact.
>
> --
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Thanks, Brian, for taking the lead on this. I generally agree with the
overall direction of the proposal. There's a lot of details on the proposal
page but I guess we can discuss them on the wiki talk page.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:58 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> A proposal[1] to clarify the tagging of reservoirs, lakes, and ponds is
> now open for comments.
>
> This proposal:
>
>   1. Deprecates landuse=reservoir
>   2. Provides definitions for:
>  a. water=reservoir
>  b. water=lake
>  c. water=pond
>
> It is clear from various multiple discussions on this topic that there are
> still open questions from the original 2011 water=* proposal, as well as
> the exact definition of a reservoir, and how they differ from lakes and
> ponds.  Previous discussions indicated that there is community support for
> maintaining a distinction between lake and pond, rather than eliminating or
> merging these concepts.
>
> The definitions posed in this proposal were developed with the help of
> considerable community input over the last week, and I want to thank the
> numerous folks that collaborated on this.  The real world presents many
> edge cases that make it challenging to come up with clear definitions, but
> that should not prevent us from trying.
>
> The goal in these definitions is to *describe* rather than *prescribe* how
> reservoir, lake, and pond are actually tagged.  This necessarily involves
> some degree of subjectivity between the categories, and the proposed
> definitions leave it to mappers to make these subjective decisions when a
> body of water exhibits some characteristics of more than one of these terms.
>
> As this topic has been discussed ad nauseam for nearly a decade, I hope
> that this proposal, discussion, and subsequent vote will allow us to put
> this issue to rest, and/or document the level of community support that
> exists for different tagging schemes.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-12-21, pr, 01:10 Clifford Snow rašė:
> Please refrain from calling out others as outlined in the Etiquette 
> Guidelines [1]

  Can you be more specific?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Clifford Snow]

Tomas,
Please refrain from calling out others as outlined in the Etiquette
Guidelines [1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-20, sk, 17:59 Paul Allen rašė:
> > Too late, at least for iD.  Its authors have already decided to deprecate
> > landuse=reservoir.  All this proposal does is document the fact.
>
>   Strange sequence/logic tho:
>   1. iD brakes the rules, does something contrary to what
> OpenStreetMap/mappers do,
>   2. instead of fixing the offender - iD, Brian decides to bend the
> rules... ignoring the cartographic advantages of landuse=reservoir and
> impossibility to achieve "full rule of natural=water" in any near
> future as there are a lot of other tags to be massacred, not only
> landuse=reservoir. waterway=riverbank - 255K water=riverbank - 1K <-
> this even with iD once again lying about it being deprecated...
>
>   I hope this proposal will be ignored as the initial one ten years
> ago was. 20-30 people voting is nothing when we talk about tag with
> almost 400K and much longer usage.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-12-20, sk, 17:59 Paul Allen rašė:
> Too late, at least for iD.  Its authors have already decided to deprecate
> landuse=reservoir.  All this proposal does is document the fact.

  Strange sequence/logic tho:
  1. iD brakes the rules, does something contrary to what
OpenStreetMap/mappers do,
  2. instead of fixing the offender - iD, Brian decides to bend the
rules... ignoring the cartographic advantages of landuse=reservoir and
impossibility to achieve "full rule of natural=water" in any near
future as there are a lot of other tags to be massacred, not only
landuse=reservoir. waterway=riverbank - 255K water=riverbank - 1K <-
this even with iD once again lying about it being deprecated...

  I hope this proposal will be ignored as the initial one ten years
ago was. 20-30 people voting is nothing when we talk about tag with
almost 400K and much longer usage.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:29, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
>
> In addition, please consider that deprecated features are being flagged by
> editor sw on
>
saving any changeet that contains an deprecated tag, even if it has nothing
> to do
>
with your actual editing, this would be adding another contnued nuisance
> for mappers
>
(there are already others opf that type).
>

> Please don't do it
>

Too late, at least for iD.  Its authors have already decided to deprecate
landuse=reservoir.  All this proposal does is document the fact.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Volker Schmidt]

383 813
*landuse* 
*reservoir* 
334 450
*water* 
*reservoir* 
I think it does make no sense to deprecate a tag with 380k uses.
The two will stay with us in parallel for the entire lifetime off the OSM
database
As you rightly state that no automatic conversion should be used, any
atempt of manual editing is a waste of time.
In addition, please consider that deprecated features are being flagged by
editor sw on saving any changeet that contains an deprecated tag, even if
it has nothing to do with your actual editing, this would be adding another
contnued nuisance for mappers (there are already others opf that type).

Please don't do it

Volker

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:58, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> A proposal[1] to clarify the tagging of reservoirs, lakes, and ponds is
> now open for comments.
>
> This proposal:
>
>   1. Deprecates landuse=reservoir
>   2. Provides definitions for:
>  a. water=reservoir
>  b. water=lake
>  c. water=pond
>
> It is clear from various multiple discussions on this topic that there are
> still open questions from the original 2011 water=* proposal, as well as
> the exact definition of a reservoir, and how they differ from lakes and
> ponds.  Previous discussions indicated that there is community support for
> maintaining a distinction between lake and pond, rather than eliminating or
> merging these concepts.
>
> The definitions posed in this proposal were developed with the help of
> considerable community input over the last week, and I want to thank the
> numerous folks that collaborated on this.  The real world presents many
> edge cases that make it challenging to come up with clear definitions, but
> that should not prevent us from trying.
>
> The goal in these definitions is to *describe* rather than *prescribe* how
> reservoir, lake, and pond are actually tagged.  This necessarily involves
> some degree of subjectivity between the categories, and the proposed
> definitions leave it to mappers to make these subjective decisions when a
> body of water exhibits some characteristics of more than one of these terms.
>
> As this topic has been discussed ad nauseam for nearly a decade, I hope
> that this proposal, discussion, and subsequent vote will allow us to put
> this issue to rest, and/or document the level of community support that
> exists for different tagging schemes.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

A proposal[1] to clarify the tagging of reservoirs, lakes, and ponds is now
open for comments.

This proposal:

  1. Deprecates landuse=reservoir
  2. Provides definitions for:
 a. water=reservoir
 b. water=lake
 c. water=pond

It is clear from various multiple discussions on this topic that there are
still open questions from the original 2011 water=* proposal, as well as
the exact definition of a reservoir, and how they differ from lakes and
ponds.  Previous discussions indicated that there is community support for
maintaining a distinction between lake and pond, rather than eliminating or
merging these concepts.

The definitions posed in this proposal were developed with the help of
considerable community input over the last week, and I want to thank the
numerous folks that collaborated on this.  The real world presents many
edge cases that make it challenging to come up with clear definitions, but
that should not prevent us from trying.

The goal in these definitions is to *describe* rather than *prescribe* how
reservoir, lake, and pond are actually tagged.  This necessarily involves
some degree of subjectivity between the categories, and the proposed
definitions leave it to mappers to make these subjective decisions when a
body of water exhibits some characteristics of more than one of these terms.

As this topic has been discussed ad nauseam for nearly a decade, I hope
that this proposal, discussion, and subsequent vote will allow us to put
this issue to rest, and/or document the level of community support that
exists for different tagging schemes.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reservoir
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging