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

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

In this cross-cultural environment where many are writing in a language
which is not their primary means of communication and where we all live in
different places with different cultural values, it is very important that
we attribute good intentions to others.

If there are any problems with the ideas or words of another person, please
criticize the misinformation, but do not personally attack anyone or
suggest that another mapper had bad intent. Ad hominem arguments are not
persuasive nor effective.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:55 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-17, kt, 18:20 Joseph Eisenberg  rašė:
> > That's not accurate, Tomas.
>
>   Why? Mateusz without the end of discussion started, well continued
> editing the wiki (I had to correct some of his misinterpretations
> which have been discussed here), he also made some attempts in JOSM
> trac, these are the things I follow, but I do now follow Mateusz
> personally, so gods know where else he is buldozzing.
>
>   This is only pushing towards the splitting of tagging standards even
> further. We will introduce our approved tagging schemas/tools in
> Lithuania, somebody will follow (some probably have already done so)
> and what will we have then? I guess a wonderland for global data
> consumers. We probably need per country tagging lists ;-)
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-17, kt, 18:20 Joseph Eisenberg  rašė:
> That's not accurate, Tomas.

  Why? Mateusz without the end of discussion started, well continued
editing the wiki (I had to correct some of his misinterpretations
which have been discussed here), he also made some attempts in JOSM
trac, these are the things I follow, but I do now follow Mateusz
personally, so gods know where else he is buldozzing.

  This is only pushing towards the splitting of tagging standards even
further. We will introduce our approved tagging schemas/tools in
Lithuania, somebody will follow (some probably have already done so)
and what will we have then? I guess a wonderland for global data
consumers. We probably need per country tagging lists ;-)

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


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

2020-12-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
That's not accurate, Tomas.

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

The page Tag:landuse=reservoir has been edited several times by Mateusz,
but also by Tstraupis, ZeLonewolf and me - each 2 times in the past week.
The wiki documentation is a team effort which evolves over time:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir=history

Please feel welcome to edit it further if there is information that is
missing, incorrect or misleading in the current version of the page.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:16 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> And while we're discussing here, Mateusz is already on a rampage to
> change wiki pages, write patches etc. Thus buldozzing his opinion,
> ignoring others. Showing "community building" behaviour.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-17 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 17, 2020, 08:02 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>>
>> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the 
>> natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes 
>> is very important for proper rendering of many maps.
>>
>
>
> and it seems landuse=reservoir is used for sewage as well:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/reservoir_type=sewage
>
> is this appropriate for natural=water?
>
No.

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


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

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

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

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


and it seems landuse=reservoir is used for sewage as well:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/reservoir_type=sewage

is this appropriate for natural=water?

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:43, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature
> with basin=retention
>

Maybe? But there's an awful lot of them tagged as reservoirs!

Thanks

Graeme

>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest
>> dams, because they're mounded up above the ground eg
>>
>> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg
>>
>> For a full explanation:
>> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That Wikipedia page is right.
>>> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
>>> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
>>> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
>>> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>>>
>>> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
>>> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
 English.

 Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
 water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)

 -- Joseph Eisenberg

 On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
 josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>
> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>
> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
> sure what subtag to use.
> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is 
> structurally
> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
> reservoirs.
>
> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>
> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map
> incrementally, which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality
> maps that are constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality 
> map,
> we'd map systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will
> appear on a render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't
> be mapping.
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
> wrote:
>
>> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>> > (just added)
>>
>>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>>
>>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
>> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
>> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
>> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
>> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
>> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
>> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
>> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
>> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
>> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
>> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
>> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
>> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
>> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
>> water scheme.
>>
>>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
>> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
>> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
>> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
>> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>>
>>   Did I miss anything?
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list

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

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature
with basin=retention

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams,
> because they're mounded up above the ground eg
>
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg
>
> For a full explanation:
> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
>
>> That Wikipedia page is right.
>> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
>> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
>> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
>> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>>
>> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
>> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>>> English.
>>>
>>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>>
>>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.

 It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
 personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.

 I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
 sure what subtag to use.
 I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
 definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
 and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
 reservoirs.

 Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
 expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
 I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
 water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.

 One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
 which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
 constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
 systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
 render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.


 On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
 wrote:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
> > (just added)
>
>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>
>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
> water scheme.
>
>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>
>   Did I miss anything?
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I should have added ...

So really, they're not "natural" in any way (except for the water in them!,
& even that is frequently pumped in).

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams,
> because they're mounded up above the ground eg
>
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg
>
> For a full explanation:
> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
>
>> That Wikipedia page is right.
>> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
>> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
>> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
>> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>>
>> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
>> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>>> English.
>>>
>>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>>
>>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.

 It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
 personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.

 I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
 sure what subtag to use.
 I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
 definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
 and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
 reservoirs.

 Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
 expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
 I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
 water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.

 One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
 which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
 constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
 systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
 render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.


 On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
 wrote:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
> > (just added)
>
>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>
>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
> water scheme.
>
>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>
>   Did I miss anything?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 

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

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

For a full explanation:
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
wrote:

> That Wikipedia page is right.
> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>
> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>> English.
>>
>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>>>
>>> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
>>> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>>>
>>> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
>>> sure what subtag to use.
>>> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
>>> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
>>> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
>>> reservoirs.
>>>
>>> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
>>> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
>>> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
>>> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>>>
>>> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
>>> which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
>>> constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
>>> systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
>>> render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
 >
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
 > (just added)

   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
   My arguments on the points you've added:

   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
 If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
 not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
 (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
 could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
 make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
 for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
 complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
 importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
 use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
 work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
 natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
 ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
 makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
 water scheme.

   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
 cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
 between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
 describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
 how these classes are CAPTURED.

   Did I miss anything?

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

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

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

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

I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this is
the intended tag. Thanks!



On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
> English.
>
> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin)
> with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>>
>> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
>> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>>
>> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
>> sure what subtag to use.
>> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
>> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
>> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
>> reservoirs.
>>
>> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
>> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
>> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
>> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>>
>> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
>> which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
>> constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
>> systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
>> render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>>> > (just added)
>>>
>>>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>>>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>>>
>>>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
>>> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
>>> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
>>> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
>>> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
>>> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
>>> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
>>> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
>>> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
>>> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
>>> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
>>> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
>>> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
>>> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
>>> water scheme.
>>>
>>>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
>>> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
>>> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
>>> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
>>> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>>>
>>>   Did I miss anything?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
English.

Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin)
with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume 
wrote:

> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>
> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>
> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
> sure what subtag to use.
> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I definitely
> don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally and
> functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large reservoirs.
>
> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd expect.
> The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and I'd
> therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>
> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
> which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
> constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
> systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
> render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
> wrote:
>
>> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>> > (just added)
>>
>>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>>
>>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
>> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
>> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
>> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
>> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
>> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
>> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
>> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
>> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
>> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
>> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
>> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
>> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
>> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
>> water scheme.
>>
>>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
>> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
>> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
>> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
>> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>>
>>   Did I miss anything?
>>
>> ___
>> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Guillaume
This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.

It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.

I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being sure
what subtag to use.
I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I definitely
don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally and
functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large reservoirs.

Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd expect.
The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and I'd
therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.

One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.


On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
wrote:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
> > (just added)
>
>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>
>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
> water scheme.
>
>   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>
>   Did I miss anything?
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the 
> information that I had.
>
That is sign of bad tagging scheme.

> I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the Wiki.  
>
Is it enough?

> I asked here on the mailing list, and the only answers that I got were along 
> the lines of "then don't map it."  So for several years I haven't attempted 
> to map rapids. The ones I know of and want to render, I maintain separately 
> from OSM, because the previous discussion had caused me to label this feature 
> mentally as, "OSM doesn't want this mapped."
>
:( Hopefully this can be fixed so this will not happen.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

>   This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at
> it: what is exception from the reservoir rule - hard shoreline or non
> hard. I was thinking of the ways to map fuzzy shore in OSM and had the
> same idea to tag fuzzy shoreline as a line - this would be the same
> way as in your example but would need to de-emphasize rather than
> emphasize the shoreline. And I'm sure I've seen a legend with blackish
> border for reservoir, but do not remember if that was USGS or NATO map
> (reservoirs have some distinct properties worth depicting on some
> specific maps)... And I remember talking about lake/reservoir black
> border symbolisation with one of the leading cartography experts in
> Lithuania.
>

In my part of the world, the most significant reservoirs are the large ones
of the New York City water system (some of which are a couple of hundred km
from the city itself), and the Great Sacandaga Lake. They have hardened
shorelines only near the dams or where the reinforcement is needed to
protect a feature such as a highway. Otherwise, if you couldn't see the
dams (and the signage!) they'd be hard to distinguish from natural lakes.

Where I have good hydrology data, I render normal seasonal limits (by
drawing two shorelines), the presence or absence of emergent vegetation,
and the flood stage (a dashed blue line).  That makes for a pretty complex
(and somewhat 'cubistic') rendering, as at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.5897=-74.6176=15,
but at least gives me some idea how likely I am to get my feet wet. (Or
drown, in the wrong season!)

I have no plans to get any of the data behind this rendering into OSM. I've
managed imports before. I might again. I'm not going to attempt one on this
scale, particularly when I'm not certain about the data quality.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 20:30 Kevin Kenny rašė:
>>   https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154
> Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging?

  waterway=rapid
  At the time of usage it was deprecated (and plural), but I know what
that means and after each discussion on tagging list I'm less and less
inclined to propose/discuss anything here and evenmore editing the
wiki.

  My take is that cayaking info is added to be used for specific
purposes (well, cayaking) by specific people (cayaking enthusiasts,
cayaking service providers and tourists) so we know the practical
usage, we know cartographic requirements for data, look for suitable
tags in other places and use them, if there are none or they do not
fit the purpose - we add required tags. Important thing is that we can
distinguish each feature and if some more suitable tagging schema
emerges - we can always re-tag everything in a minute (and change
software in a day).

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

>   Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare - opposite of lake/reservoir data.
> Therefore it's fine to map what you need only:
>   https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154


Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging?

An example (with part of the hydrography and nearly all of the landcover
from non-OSM sources) follows. I'm rendering polygons of the river with a
white overlay when they are stretches of rapids.  The rapids can be short
and relatively discrete as at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.3152=-73.8440=15
In the mountains, though, there may be long stretches of nearly continuous
whitewater:
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.3604=-74.3637=14
The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the
information that I had.

I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the
Wiki.

At the time I last had the discussion, the version of the page on the Wiki
looked like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:waterway%3Drapids=1322133
- deprecating the tag.  On the other hand, the discussion on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports is highly technical.
I know that I am not skilled enough at whitewater paddling (I did a little
in my youth, but my youth is quite a long time ago) to make a safe
assessment of grade, and the `Whtiewater sports' page makes no mention of
'grade=unknown'. I asked here on the mailing list, and the only answers
that I got were along the lines of "then don't map it."  So for several
years I haven't attempted to map rapids. The ones I know of and want to
render, I maintain separately from OSM, because the previous discussion had
caused me to label this feature mentally as, "OSM doesn't want this mapped."


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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 20:03 Kevin Kenny  rašė:
> Many smaller reservoirs have artificially hardened shorelines completely
> surrounding them, which could be why you thought that the symbology
> distinguishes 'lake' from 'reservoir.'

  This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at
it: what is exception from the reservoir rule - hard shoreline or non
hard. I was thinking of the ways to map fuzzy shore in OSM and had the
same idea to tag fuzzy shoreline as a line - this would be the same
way as in your example but would need to de-emphasize rather than
emphasize the shoreline. And I'm sure I've seen a legend with blackish
border for reservoir, but do not remember if that was USGS or NATO map
(reservoirs have some distinct properties worth depicting on some
specific maps)... And I remember talking about lake/reservoir black
border symbolisation with one of the leading cartography experts in
Lithuania.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

>   In other maps reservoirs (US?) could have black border.


The usual symbology on USGS and DMS maps is that the black border denotes
an 'artificial shoreline', where the shore is either stabilized with riprap
or concrete, or built up with a groyne, quay or similar structure.

Sometimes I care enough to map those. (No apologies for not caring. There's
so very much around me that is unmapped that anything I do is leaving
something else undone.)  The stabilized shorelines even look decent on the
default rendering.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.4601/-74.4525
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.4769/-74.4393

Many smaller reservoirs have artificially hardened shorelines completely
surrounding them, which could be why you thought that the symbology
distinguishes 'lake' from 'reservoir.'

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


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

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

  Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare - opposite of lake/reservoir data.
Therefore it's fine to map what you need only:
  https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:52 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Re: "natural=water' wins.  I can see that there's water there"
>
> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the
> natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes
> is very important for proper rendering of many maps.
>

I do know that the coastline is a special case, and I know about the
'water=*' key. I fill a value in when I know the answer. I leave it out
when I don't.


> Also, many areas of natural=water actually don't have any water for much
> of the year, if they are also intermittent=yes - such as seasonal lakes in
> semi-arid areas.
>

I use that tag too.

I personally am not as concerned about water=reservoir for artificial
> lakes, but I am concerned that water=river is often forgotten when mapping
> areas of river water, where previously waterway=riverbank was clearly
> distinguished from lakes.
>
> Many map styles distinguish rivers and streams from lakes, since it is
> often helpful to use a darker color for narrow linear features.
>

That's fine. I can see that it's moving water and tag it appropriately.

If I have to figure out if a pond is karstic, glacial, man-made or
beaver-made before I can map it, it's likely to go unmapped. I can't always
see that from aerials and I can't always access the outlet to figure out
what's retaining the water.

We seem to be dividing into two camps here, as we do on many tagging
issues. One camp is, "we must have the highest possible quality. Everything
must be mapped perfectly or not mapped at all." The other is, "it's all
right to have some missing details, they can be filled in later. It's
better to fill in the picture with broad brush strokes and then go back to
add the details."The perfectionists appear to support tagging schemata
that make it difficult to map without complete research. Both sides appear
to agree that doing the research is desirable. It comes down to an
apparently irreconcilable argument over whether it's worse to have an
incompletely characterized waterbody or a blank spot on the map.

With respect to water, another concern  of mine is that our tagging schema
does not offer any way to tag that there are rapids in a river without
knowing how to grade the difficulty of a canoe or kayak run. That's a case
where the voted-on tagging requires perfect mapping before the data can be
entered at all - and when I mentioned that once before, I was put down with
"if you don't understand it, don't map it." I understand it well enough to
know that as a greenwater canoeist, I'll want to portage around it. I can
see the whitewater. I cannot grade it safely. Here, however, the community
consensus appears to have settled on the perfectionist approach, so I don't
map rapids.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 18:58 Ture Pålsson via Tagging rašė:
> Could you elaborate a bit on what cartographic features on that map are
> possible or impossible with the different reservoir tagging schemes?

  Symbolisation (colour), selection (different classes for different scales).
  In other maps reservoirs (US?) could have black border.
  GIS analysis is another beast where these classes are important as different.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Ture Pålsson via Tagging


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

Could you elaborate a bit on what cartographic features on that map are 
possible or impossible with the different reservoir tagging schemes? Being 
Swedish, not Swiss, makes it hard for me to know what to look for.

(For the record, I have no particular opinion in this question, except that I 
think OSM should immediately adapt its tagging to the Swedish Terrängkartan, T5 
edition, but I think that’s going to be a hard sell! :-) )

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "natural=water' wins.  I can see that there's water there"

You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the
natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes
is very important for proper rendering of many maps.

Also, many areas of natural=water actually don't have any water for much of
the year, if they are also intermittent=yes - such as seasonal lakes in
semi-arid areas.

I personally am not as concerned about water=reservoir for artificial
lakes, but I am concerned that water=river is often forgotten when mapping
areas of river water, where previously waterway=riverbank was clearly
distinguished from lakes.

Many map styles distinguish rivers and streams from lakes, since it is
often helpful to use a darker color for narrow linear features.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:40 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> My take on it:
>
> Wearing my data consumer's hat:
>
> For most purposes, I care about "this ground is covered with water".
> 'natural=water' is the main thing to look for, but I also have to look for
> 'landuse=reservoir' and several other things that I can't be bothered to
> look up at the moment. I have to look for all those things, so I don't
> really care all that much which one is in use.
>
> The chief problem with both of these tags is that even for the rough-level
> mapping, I have to examine 'water=*' or 'reservior_type=*' to find that the
> contained substance is, in fact, water and not sewage or mine tailings.
>
> In any case, both uses are widespread.  I'm going to need to interpret
> both for the foreseeable future.  I can cope with synonyms.  I'm not going
> to lobby strongly for one or the other.
>
> Wearing my mapper's hat:
>
> 'natural=water' wins.  I can see that there's water there. The big
> counterargument that I've heard, other than that 'landuse=reservoir' has
> been the predominant tagging, is that a reservoir isn't "natural" water.
> But in our complex, human- (and beaver-) sculpted environment, what is
> natural?  Many of the reservoirs that I've encountered have natural lakes
> and ponds underneath, and simply have had their water raised. It seems to
> me that by the thinking of those who think that 'natural' means "totally
> untouched by humans", that I'd actually be required to do the research
> about where the old shoreline lay before humans raised the water, and
> divide the reservoir into an inner 'natural=water' and an outer
> 'landuse=reservoir' - which is an example of the tagging position that I
> abhor.  I shouldn't have to do historical research in order to map
> something that I can directly observe with my own eyes. In fact, with some
> of the ponds I've mapped, I've not troubled (or been able to) access the
> outlet to find out what controls the water level. I don't know whether they
> are tarns, dolines, beaver ponds, or man-made ponds created for logging
> until I can find out where the water goes when it leaves.  (I hike in
> glaciated karst; the landforms are complex.) But I can see at a  glance,
> "there's water here," whether glaciers, limestone, beavers or humans put it
> there. That should be enough to map it.
>
> If someone else feels strongly enough about it to change something that
> I've mapped as 'natural=water' to 'landuse=reservoir', well, I know that I
> have to accept that as a synonym. so it's not going to harm me as a data
> consumer.  I'm not going to change it back.  But I'm not going to accept
> that the original tagging was "incorrect" or "deprecated".  I mapped what I
> saw. You can go there and see it too.
>
> To continue the classification of waterbodies, this argument to me is a
> tempest in a teapot.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
My take on it:

Wearing my data consumer's hat:

For most purposes, I care about "this ground is covered with water".
'natural=water' is the main thing to look for, but I also have to look for
'landuse=reservoir' and several other things that I can't be bothered to
look up at the moment. I have to look for all those things, so I don't
really care all that much which one is in use.

The chief problem with both of these tags is that even for the rough-level
mapping, I have to examine 'water=*' or 'reservior_type=*' to find that the
contained substance is, in fact, water and not sewage or mine tailings.

In any case, both uses are widespread.  I'm going to need to interpret both
for the foreseeable future.  I can cope with synonyms.  I'm not going to
lobby strongly for one or the other.

Wearing my mapper's hat:

'natural=water' wins.  I can see that there's water there. The big
counterargument that I've heard, other than that 'landuse=reservoir' has
been the predominant tagging, is that a reservoir isn't "natural" water.
But in our complex, human- (and beaver-) sculpted environment, what is
natural?  Many of the reservoirs that I've encountered have natural lakes
and ponds underneath, and simply have had their water raised. It seems to
me that by the thinking of those who think that 'natural' means "totally
untouched by humans", that I'd actually be required to do the research
about where the old shoreline lay before humans raised the water, and
divide the reservoir into an inner 'natural=water' and an outer
'landuse=reservoir' - which is an example of the tagging position that I
abhor.  I shouldn't have to do historical research in order to map
something that I can directly observe with my own eyes. In fact, with some
of the ponds I've mapped, I've not troubled (or been able to) access the
outlet to find out what controls the water level. I don't know whether they
are tarns, dolines, beaver ponds, or man-made ponds created for logging
until I can find out where the water goes when it leaves.  (I hike in
glaciated karst; the landforms are complex.) But I can see at a  glance,
"there's water here," whether glaciers, limestone, beavers or humans put it
there. That should be enough to map it.

If someone else feels strongly enough about it to change something that
I've mapped as 'natural=water' to 'landuse=reservoir', well, I know that I
have to accept that as a synonym. so it's not going to harm me as a data
consumer.  I'm not going to change it back.  But I'm not going to accept
that the original tagging was "incorrect" or "deprecated".  I mapped what I
saw. You can go there and see it too.

To continue the classification of waterbodies, this argument to me is a
tempest in a teapot.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

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

  BTW. It is another advantage of landuse=reservoir schema. It forces
people creating map to understand that there ARE different classes of
water. Then they have to understand what those classes are (and why)
and choose which are appropriate in their particular products. If you
have an umbrella tag like natural=water most will simply go with such
simple where condition and therefore miss some very important things
(and create low quality maps, and will not learn important lessons).

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Hello,

Le mer. 16 déc. 2020 à 16:19, Brian M. Sperlongano  a
écrit :

> If you are not willing to have this question put up for a proposal (where,
> as with any proposal, you are free to present your argument for all to
> consider), your arguments are in bad faith, and again, must be dismissed
> without consideration.  Your desire to bypass our democratic process and
> upend community consensus for tagging you don't like is frankly insulting
> to the rest of us that work hard to achieve consensus in tagging.  Why
> should we waste time debating you, if you aren't willing to accept the
> outcome of the community decision-making process?
>

There are no such things as "democratic process" or "community consensus"
in tagging in OSM.
So please, we must be tolerant with others' freedom to express their
opinions.

Bien à vous.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 18:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and
> render all types of water areas in the same way (some
> render also labels in the same way, with exception
> for linear features)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3643/18.7150
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=C
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=T
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=H

  Why is there no label for waterway polygon?
  What about maps made according to Cartographic conventions?
  You know, something on the lines of: https://map.geo.admin.ch Would
it be possible to make maps of such quality writing general queries
like natural=water?

  A lot of Cartographic papers are open. Look at those mentioning VGI
or OSM directly and check what cartographers very diplomatically say
about OSM maps/cartography (not data). Why is that? Could it be that
there is simply too much resistance to push something more advanced
into OSM?

>> Best system is to use codes, not names for keys/values, but that is a
>> totally different "saga".
> Feel free to propose this one.

  From my perspective there is a big problem with making complex
changes/decisions (requiring a lot of specific/thematic
knowledge/experience) as there is no way to value "votes" of people
with different experience differently. If it is not valued differently
then the result you get is an average. What is an average of 1, 1, 1,
2, 2, 50? Why would 50 want to be involved in something where result
will be 10 and you would have to fight for each action?

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Peter Elderson
I'll tag both ways then, or better map none at all? Shirt, another dilemma.
I need something stronger than tea.

Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 dec. 2020 om 17:04 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
>
> 2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas
> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish
> between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning.
>
> But it is also the most typical and common way of rendering things.
>
>
> How do you decide that it is most typical and common way of rendering
> things?
> ALL maps I created or seen in GIS/Cartography world, be it online or
> printed, interpret water classes differently, especially
> basins/riverbanks...
>
> Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and
> render all types of water areas in the same way (some
> render also labels in the same way, with exception
> for linear features)
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3643/18.7150
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=C
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=T
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=H
> 
>
> In contrast
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=O
> 
> appears to distinguish seas/oceans
>
> Best system is to use codes, not names for keys/values, but that is a
> totally different "saga".
>
> Feel free to propose this one.
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
>> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas
>> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish
>> between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning.
>>
>> But it is also the most typical and common way of rendering things.
>>
>
> How do you decide that it is most typical and common way of rendering things?
>  ALL maps I created or seen in GIS/Cartography world, be it online or
> printed, interpret water classes differently, especially
> basins/riverbanks... 
>
Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and 
render all types of water areas in the same way (some 
render also labels in the same way, with exception
for linear features)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3643/18.7150
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=C
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=T
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=H 


In contrast
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/54.3666/18.7138=O 

appears to distinguish seas/oceans


> Best system is to use codes, not names for keys/values, but that is a
> totally different "saga".
>
Feel free to propose this one.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 17:19 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to 
> create them.
>  I stand by them, as numbers do not lie.

  Have you heard of the saying "correlation is not causation"?
  You have to understand where numbers come from and why in order to use them.

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


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

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

  How do you decide that it is most typical and common way of rendering things?
  ALL maps I created or seen in GIS/Cartography world, be it online or
printed, interpret water classes differently, especially
basins/riverbanks... And it will be even more important moving to
vector tiles.

> This is a double edged sword, it also means that mapper unsure
> whatever something is natural or man made (common in case
> of mapping based on aerial images, sometimes even in
> case of survey) is unable to mark a water area.

  But that is a point, mapper should find out if we want to have
higher quality data. There is usually some source available you can
use. You can always add fixme, if you're unsure.
  And for the case of pond it IS possible to distinguish it from
reservoir/lake straight away.

> And distinguishing natural vs man made is still possible
> with water tag anyway.

  99% water objects mapped with iD I've seen are water=pond...

> (similarly like I have not mentioned that both natural
> and landuse are quite counterintuitive key names here)

 Best system is to use codes, not names for keys/values, but that is a
totally different "saga".

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


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

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

If you are not willing to have this question put up for a proposal (where,
as with any proposal, you are free to present your argument for all to
consider), your arguments are in bad faith, and again, must be dismissed
without consideration.  Your desire to bypass our democratic process and
upend community consensus for tagging you don't like is frankly insulting
to the rest of us that work hard to achieve consensus in tagging.  Why
should we waste time debating you, if you aren't willing to accept the
outcome of the community decision-making process?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> Brian, you're using statistics which DO NOT represent mappers preferences.
> If you would use only JOSM created objects - then it would be close to
> mappers preferences (as JOSM allows mappers to choose).
> But you use iD created/adjusted objects and as it does not allow
> showing your preference (drilling down into tags is only a theoretical
> possibility) and even pushes you to overwrite other peoples
> preferences you have to exclude iD tainted objects if you're trying to
> get "community preference" from statistics.
>
> Therefore I would suggest starting with the core - arguments
> advantages/disadvantages of both schemas.
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 16, 2020, 15:22 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>> (just added)
>>
>
> Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>  
>
In my experience it results just in not adding anything at all.

It is wiki and can be edited by anyone, so if what I added is wrong it can be 
changed.

>
>
> My arguments on the points you've added:
>
>  1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
> natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
> ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
> makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
> water scheme.
>
I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas
(that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish
between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning.

But it is also the most typical and common way of rendering things.

>  2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
> cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
> between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
> describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
> how these classes are CAPTURED.
>
This is a double edged sword, it also means that mapper unsure
whatever something is natural or man made (common in case
of mapping based on aerial images, sometimes even in
case of survey) is unable to mark a water area.

And distinguishing natural vs man made is still possible 
with water tag anyway.

I was unsure whatever it should be listed as a benefit or
drawback or both sides explained so I ended not 
mentioning this.

(similarly like I have not mentioned that both natural
and landuse are quite counterintuitive key names here)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
Brian, you're using statistics which DO NOT represent mappers preferences.
If you would use only JOSM created objects - then it would be close to
mappers preferences (as JOSM allows mappers to choose).
But you use iD created/adjusted objects and as it does not allow
showing your preference (drilling down into tags is only a theoretical
possibility) and even pushes you to overwrite other peoples
preferences you have to exclude iD tainted objects if you're trying to
get "community preference" from statistics.

Therefore I would suggest starting with the core - arguments
advantages/disadvantages of both schemas.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
> (just added)

  Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
  My arguments on the points you've added:

  1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
(totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
water scheme.

  2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
how these classes are CAPTURED.

  Did I miss anything?

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 16, 2020, 14:42 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

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

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
(just added)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas,

Since you are not willing to accept (1) an existing approved proposal, (2)
new proposal to correct flaws in the first one, or (3) the overwhelming
preference of the mapping community over the past four years[1], then I'm
sorry but we must curtly dismiss your arguments as a one-man crusade[2,3,4]
against tagging which you do not like.  It is clear that you wish to impose
your views on the community regardless of what the consensus is.  If there
is truly a community of mappers out there that share your view, it should
be easy to convince them to come and vote.  Since you are not willing to
accept the democratic process that we have established, and you do not
respect the viewpoints of others, all you are doing is wasting our time.
Thus I ask you, respectfully, to stop.

If there are others here that desire a proposal for the purpose of
documenting that landuse=reservoir is deprecated, I will gladly do so.
With no proposal, the status quo will remain: landuse=reservoir will
continue to be steadily replaced with water=reservoir, and our wiki will
remain confusing in its documentation of these tags.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Analysis/Reservoir
[2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7382
[3] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589
[4] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17874


On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:32 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> > If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as
> landuse is
> > strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up
> for a
> > community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide.
>
>   Brian, landuse=reservoir is the ORIGINAL and ACTIVE schema. Why
> should anybody propose the vote for it?
>
>   I do not like voting on wiki because it is clearly a flawed process
> (as discusses a number of times), what do 20 wiki participants/people
> mean against the actual mappers? We could end up in the same situation
> as with original water=reservoir proposal where somebody with barely
> few months of participation in OSM and no knowledge of GIS/Carto
> makes/influences the decision/proposal...
>
>   And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema?
> If there are none, then the only logical decision is to deprecate
> water=reservoir, because it would make it worse of the two. Shouldn't
> we get ARGUMENTS before we go to any kind of voting/decision?
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema
> as unimportant

  Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could
evaluate/compare?
  (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never materialised)

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 16, 2020, 14:29 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

>  And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema?
> If there are none
>
I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema
as unimportant

But, please, stop pretending that there are no benefits. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

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

  Brian, landuse=reservoir is the ORIGINAL and ACTIVE schema. Why
should anybody propose the vote for it?

  I do not like voting on wiki because it is clearly a flawed process
(as discusses a number of times), what do 20 wiki participants/people
mean against the actual mappers? We could end up in the same situation
as with original water=reservoir proposal where somebody with barely
few months of participation in OSM and no knowledge of GIS/Carto
makes/influences the decision/proposal...

  And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema?
If there are none, then the only logical decision is to deprecate
water=reservoir, because it would make it worse of the two. Shouldn't
we get ARGUMENTS before we go to any kind of voting/decision?

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas,

If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as landuse
is strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up
for a community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide.


On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:01 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-16, tr, 01:32 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> > The iD editor preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM
> > preset appears to use landuse=reservoir.
>
>   Not entirely correct.
>   * JOSM gives freedom to mappers and supports BOTH.
>   * iD forces to use water=reservoir and evenmore pushes users to
> change tagging by disguise of "upgrade" - therefore even mappers who
> do not understand/know the difference are inclined to change the
> tagging. <- this is the reason for current stats
>
>   My understanding is that given landuse=reservoir is the original
> water schema, the new one should show some benefits to replace the
> original one? Or we do not care about consistency and simply go on
> with replacing very prominent schemas for no good reason?
>
>   My take is that:
>   * landuse=reservoir is better compared to natural=water+water=x
> because it pushes mappers to make distinction for these
> GIS/Cartographically very different classes of water. Therefore if
> landuse=reservoir is deprecated tagging will be worse.
>
>   What are the benefits of water=reservoir?
>   Given that full scope of proposal to put all water classes under
> natural=water (the purpose which is disadvantageous from
> GIS/Cartography perspective) have failed and we're now only talking
> about two classes of water (natural and man made), and classes which
> are very different and therefore should not be merged.
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-16, tr, 01:32 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> The iD editor preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM
> preset appears to use landuse=reservoir.

  Not entirely correct.
  * JOSM gives freedom to mappers and supports BOTH.
  * iD forces to use water=reservoir and evenmore pushes users to
change tagging by disguise of "upgrade" - therefore even mappers who
do not understand/know the difference are inclined to change the
tagging. <- this is the reason for current stats

  My understanding is that given landuse=reservoir is the original
water schema, the new one should show some benefits to replace the
original one? Or we do not care about consistency and simply go on
with replacing very prominent schemas for no good reason?

  My take is that:
  * landuse=reservoir is better compared to natural=water+water=x
because it pushes mappers to make distinction for these
GIS/Cartographically very different classes of water. Therefore if
landuse=reservoir is deprecated tagging will be worse.

  What are the benefits of water=reservoir?
  Given that full scope of proposal to put all water classes under
natural=water (the purpose which is disadvantageous from
GIS/Cartography perspective) have failed and we're now only talking
about two classes of water (natural and man made), and classes which
are very different and therefore should not be merged.

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


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

2020-12-16 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Dec 16, 2020, 00:17 by zelonew...@gmail.com:

> 1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created water=reservoir 
> (and other values) as to whether the community intended to deprecate 
> landuse=reservoir or whether the community intended to create two parallel 
> tagging schemes for the same object.
>
To be more specific...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Water_details=633881#Deprecation

""Deprecates" means "is equivalent for all purposes to". For example, landuse 
=reservoir 
 
should be rendered exactly like natural 
=water 
 + water 
=reservoir. There are too many 
uses of the current tagging scheme, and we don't want massive retagging and 
edit wars."

So it was titled as deprecation, redefined deprecation to mean something else 
and
claimed that retagging is not wanted.

Great :(

> Given these issues, I would suggest a narrowly-written proposal that puts 
> forth the clear and specific question as to whether landuse=reservoir should 
> be deprecated.  If that proposal demonstrates clear community consensus for 
> deprecation (per the guidelines in our proposal process), we can update our 
> wiki documentation to explicitly recommend that landuse=reservoir be 
> gradually replaced by natural=water+water=reservoir.  If, instead, that 
> proposal demonstrates that there is still a sizable subset of mappers that 
> prefer the landuse=reservoir tag, we would simply leave both tags documented 
> without caveats, noting the results of both this and the 2011 proposals, and 
> allow the community to sort out which tagging scheme is preferred based on 
> actual usage over time.
>
> As I am the one that raised this issue in the first place, I would be happy 
> to draft such a proposal for consideration.  I want to be clear that in such 
> a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or insulting commentary directed 
> towards any group or individual will not be tolerated and will be immediately 
> brought to the attention of the wiki admins for followup.
>
> Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of 
> reservoir tagging?
>
Yes, though note that it is likely to just reconfirm stalemate.

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


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

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of
> reservoir tagging?
>

Good idea to bring it up, but not sure it will resolve anything once & for
all?

Thanks

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


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

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:32, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> 
> I want to be clear that in such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or 
> insulting commentary directed towards any group or individual will not be 
> tolerated and will be immediately brought to the attention of the wiki admins 
> for followup.


the wiki and tagging ml are safe places, no worries, if you are wary of 
insulting commentary stay away from the diversity list and 
OpenStreetMap-Foundation talk in the short period before board elections. ;-)

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


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

2020-12-15 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Thanks everyone for the discussion.

I believe there are two germane points being raised by Tomas that warrant
our consideration:

1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created
water=reservoir (and other values) as to whether the community intended to
deprecate landuse=reservoir or whether the community intended to create two
parallel tagging schemes for the same object.

2. There is some subset of the user base that uses and/or prefers
landuse=reservoir over, or in addition to, water=reservoir.  The iD editor
preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM preset appears to use
landuse=reservoir.  It is unclear whether there is actually a strong user
base preference for either tag or whether the numbers simply reflect the
presets in the editors that users happen to use.  There is also no way to
determine from these discussions alone the size of community support for
either scheme, particularly if such support is factional within non
English-speaking communities.

Given these issues, I would suggest a narrowly-written proposal that puts
forth the clear and specific question as to whether landuse=reservoir
should be deprecated.  If that proposal demonstrates clear community
consensus for deprecation (per the guidelines in our proposal process), we
can update our wiki documentation to explicitly recommend that
landuse=reservoir be gradually replaced by natural=water+water=reservoir.
If, instead, that proposal demonstrates that there is still a sizable
subset of mappers that prefer the landuse=reservoir tag, we would simply
leave both tags documented without caveats, noting the results of both this
and the 2011 proposals, and allow the community to sort out which tagging
scheme is preferred based on actual usage over time.

As I am the one that raised this issue in the first place, I would be happy
to draft such a proposal for consideration.  I want to be clear that in
such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or insulting commentary
directed towards any group or individual will not be tolerated and will be
immediately brought to the attention of the wiki admins for followup.

Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of
reservoir tagging?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "if a reservoir was fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as
landuse=reservoir but only the actual water surface as water."

There is also a more specific tag for this:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse=reservoir_watershed#overview
- though most uses were added by an import in 2011
-  landuse=reservoir_watershed:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Alanduse%3Dreservoir_watershed

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:56 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>
>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
> lacked basic IT knowledge
>
>
>
> it is indeed well documented that there was a period in iD development
> where the developers occasionally  (initially without actively
> communicating it and later openly and deliberately) dismissed the existing
> tagging wiki docs and mailing list and tag stats, but I think it should be
> mentioned that it was the former developer. Brian, maybe this was before
> you started to follow the lists. You can browse through older closed iD
> tickets to see some discussion, there’s also a wiki page about the topic:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>
> regarding water=reservoir or landuse=reservoir, there might be some subtle
> differences. water=reservoir is for surface water areas. if a reservoir was
> fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the
> actual water surface as 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 13, 2020, 19:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>>
>>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
>> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
>> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
>> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
>> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
>> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
>> lacked basic IT knowledge
>>
>
>
> it is indeed well documented that there was a period in iD development where 
> the developers occasionally  (initially without actively communicating it and 
> later openly and deliberately) dismissed the existing tagging wiki docs and 
> mailing list and tag stats, but I think it should be mentioned that it was 
> the former developer. Brian, maybe this was before you started to follow the 
> lists. You can browse through older closed iD tickets to see some discussion, 
> there’s also a wiki page about the topic: > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions
>
Yes, it happened. I considered some decisions as problematic.

But it was not about IT basic, IT knowledge, IT decisions or anything like that.

If someone complains about IT knowledge while the actual complaint
is about tagging presets then people will be very confused.

BTW, iD presets were recently extracted into 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema
to 100% decouple preset decisions that are not 
programming related for programming tasks of making editor.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 20:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> Following outcome of approved proposal that you dislike
> is not indicator of not following
> standard IT processes of product development.

  Following some wiki page (which states that landuse=reservoir is not
deprecated) written by one person and voted by few rather than de
facto situation in other editors and database is huge problem with
analysis.
  In case of iD it is even worse - it shows coders of iD did not want
to give a tool, but rather to make influence which they continue to do
quite openly, especially with a tactic of "upgrade tags". Compare that
to JOSM - which is democratic, follows OSM principle of freedom and
lets us - mappers - choose.

  Both schemas are mostly identical in what classes of object can be mapped.
  1. water=reservoir benefit could have been on coding side: having
natural=water as an "umbrella" tag but it did not work out that way
(so I do not know what is a perceived advantage now?)
  2. landuse=reservoir benefit is GIS/Cartographic: we must indicate
if it is a natural or man made waterbody.
  Now you decide which is more important to openstreetMAP.

-- 
Tomas

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
> lacked basic IT knowledge


it is indeed well documented that there was a period in iD development where 
the developers occasionally  (initially without actively communicating it and 
later openly and deliberately) dismissed the existing tagging wiki docs and 
mailing list and tag stats, but I think it should be mentioned that it was the 
former developer. Brian, maybe this was before you started to follow the lists. 
You can browse through older closed iD tickets to see some discussion, there’s 
also a wiki page about the topic: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

regarding water=reservoir or landuse=reservoir, there might be some subtle 
differences. water=reservoir is for surface water areas. if a reservoir was 
fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the 
actual water surface as water.

Cheers Martin 


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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 13, 2020, 19:33 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> 2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
>> 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>> Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie?
>>
>> "iD coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
>> (or were not familiar with the basics of IT)"
>>
>
> Let's go back in time. It is 2012. iD developers are to add water
> tagging schema to their newly baked editor. The candidates are IN
> 2012:
>  1. landuse=reservoir - the only schema in activu use, widely used,
> 200K objects tagged, documentation written, tutorials written.
>  2. water=reservoir - unused (5K? 10K?).
>  iD developers decision: go with option 2. I do not see how such
> decision could be counted as "IT-wise sound"?
>
Following outcome of approved proposal that you dislike
is not indicator of not following
standard IT processes of product development.

Again, disagreeing with you does not mean that someone is
incompetent.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

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

  Let's go back in time. It is 2012. iD developers are to add water
tagging schema to their newly baked editor. The candidates are IN
2012:
  1. landuse=reservoir - the only schema in activu use, widely used,
200K objects tagged, documentation written, tutorials written.
  2. water=reservoir - unused (5K? 10K?).
  iD developers decision: go with option 2. I do not see how such
decision could be counted as "IT-wise sound"?
  (my suspicion is that the reason was iD's tag layout being
tag+subtag and there water=reservoir was better suitable, but this is
just my speculation, if true that would be one more proof of lack of
IT experience)

> 
> "coders of iD decided to lie to the users that landuse=reservoir is
> deprecated which it never was"
>
> It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation

  Please read everything, not only the part you're interested. Zverik
agreed that it is NOT deprecated. And it was agreed in many many other
discussions that landuse=reservoir was NEVER deprecated.

> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
>
> It was not an unused schema and it was proposed, approved and used before iD
> started using it and later aggressively promoting it.

  2012:
  landuse=reservoir - 200K,
  water=reservoir - 5K? 10K?

  Should we continue to argue in the dungeons of history without
thinking about the future?

  The problem is that it dragged for almost 10 years. Now ANY decision
will be bad. That is why decision is always postponed, but time will
not change anything. The hole is till there, there are no
rules/process to circumvent that. So the situation can repeat again.

-- 
Tomas

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Dec 13, 2020, 18:46 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

Please first stop quoting me in way that presents your
statements under my autorship

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


"coders of iD decided to lie to the users that landuse=reservoir is
deprecated which it never was"

It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, 
seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation




>  I didn't say iD invented duplicate schema, I said that schema was
> lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the only way to tag
> water, introduction "launched" new water schema adding any
> considerable usage (as it was the only option for iD mappers).
>
OK, this one was based on miscommunication.



>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision
>
It was not an unused schema.

> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
>
It was not an unused schema and it was proposed, approved and used before iD
started using it and later aggressively promoting it.

>  and introduced
>
>> water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
>> water=reservoir usage was close to zero!
>>
>> See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=reservoir#chronology
>>
>> Usage in January 2019 was about 200 000 already.
>>
>> "water=reservoir usage was close to zero" is untrue
>>
>
> Key word "introduced" so it is 2012, not 2019.
>  water=reservoir usage in 2012 is close to zero.
>
Then iD followed a fresh approved proposal, so relatively low
usage is not surprising.

Though it is a rare case when I encounter complaint about iD
developers following outcome of a proposal process.

>> It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation
>>
>
> The author of this proposal agreed that standard water schema is NOT
> deprecated. 
>
It is not changing that this vote deprecated landuse=reservoir.
Maybe it is a bad decision that should be ignored, but
it is not changing that deprecation happened.

> And a few people voting in wiki cannot deprecate a tag.
>
That is one of methods to deprecate tag, even if you dislike it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "that schema was lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the
only way to tag water"

That's not really correct when it comes to landuse=reservoir

In this case, landuse=reservoir growth slowed down in 2016 for reasons that
are unclear to me:

Compare the charts:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/landuse/reservoir&***/water/reservoir

Until mild 2016 landuse=reservoir was still increasing as fast or faster
than water=reservoir
But 5 years after the water proposal was approved, this changed:
water=reservoir continued increasing linearly, but landuse=reservoir slowed
down to half the prior rate.

It's fair to say that between mid 2016 and mid 2019, water=reservoir was
twice as popular as landuse=reservoir for adding new features

Then of course the change to the iD Editor in mid 2019 caused another
inflection and landuse=reservoir started decreasing, but the water=* schema
was not "lying dead" in this case, it was already more popular.

Perhaps you are instead remembering the situation with waterway=riverbank
vs water=river. In that case it appears that iD really did start the main
change, because waterway=riverbank continued to be equally popular or more
popular than water=river for new features until mild-2019 (except perhaps
during 2017 for some reason?):
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/water/river&***/waterway/riverbank

I would be more irritated about an attempt to deprecate waterway=riverbank,
because in that case there is more risk of information loss: a reservoir
and natural=water are both historically defined as standing fresh water and
in most cases will be rendered the same (though having the information if a
lake is natural or artificial is still important). But a river is flowing
water and is often rendered differently, and tagging as natural=water risks
losing this information invisibly, if the water=river tag is accidentally
or intentionally deleted - this is partially the fault of
OpenStreetMap-Carto for not yet rendering any difference between rivers and
standing water.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 9:49 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> > New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD
> > coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
> > (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what
> > they personally liked, not what was better
> >
> > This is 100% untrue, and you insult people. Stop making such things.
> >
> > For start, iD authors (also ones that made decisions about tagging
> > presets that I consider to be mistakes and going against consensus)
> > had no problem with basics of IT and IT processes of product development.
> >
> > water=reservoir was launched (created) in 2011
> > see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
> > iD started in 2012 ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID )
>
>   Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie?
>   I didn't say iD invented duplicate schema, I said that schema was
> lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the only way to tag
> water, introduction "launched" new water schema adding any
> considerable usage (as it was the only option for iD mappers).
>
>   Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
> lacked basic IT knowledge.
>
> > , and introduced
> > water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
> > water=reservoir usage was close to zero!
> >
> > See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=reservoir#chronology
> >
> > Usage in January 2019 was about 200 000 already.
> >
> > "water=reservoir usage was close to zero" is untrue
>
>   Key word "introduced" so it is 2012, not 2019.
>   water=reservoir usage in 2012 is close to zero.
>
> > It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, see
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation
>
>   The author of this proposal agreed that standard water schema is NOT
> deprecated. And a few people voting in wiki cannot deprecate a tag.
> Only people actually mapping can do that.
>
> > BTW, you are AGAIN spreading false statements and claim that iD
> > invented water=reservoir. Please stop doing this.
>
>   Do not copy/paste my words in random order and you will not get such
> claims from me :-)
>
>   Anyways, there is no way I will be able to teach IT things people
> who do not want to learn. Let's not rewrite the history of this saga
> and lets move forward instead of repeating the same discussion again
> and again. Let's do what is possible so that this does not happen
> again:
>
>   * When tagging 

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

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

  I do agree that sometimes I get carried away, sorry I will try to reduce that.

  At the same time I ask to actually discuss the reasons why this saga
happened and ways to reduce the possibility of such harmful
duplications happening again. Bulldozing one opinion and ignoring the
other is not a good solution.

-- 
Tomas

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD
> coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
> (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what
> they personally liked, not what was better
>
> This is 100% untrue, and you insult people. Stop making such things.
>
> For start, iD authors (also ones that made decisions about tagging
> presets that I consider to be mistakes and going against consensus)
> had no problem with basics of IT and IT processes of product development.
>
> water=reservoir was launched (created) in 2011
> see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
> iD started in 2012 ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID )

  Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie?
  I didn't say iD invented duplicate schema, I said that schema was
lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the only way to tag
water, introduction "launched" new water schema adding any
considerable usage (as it was the only option for iD mappers).

  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
lacked basic IT knowledge.

> , and introduced
> water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
> water=reservoir usage was close to zero!
>
> See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=reservoir#chronology
>
> Usage in January 2019 was about 200 000 already.
>
> "water=reservoir usage was close to zero" is untrue

  Key word "introduced" so it is 2012, not 2019.
  water=reservoir usage in 2012 is close to zero.

> It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation

  The author of this proposal agreed that standard water schema is NOT
deprecated. And a few people voting in wiki cannot deprecate a tag.
Only people actually mapping can do that.

> BTW, you are AGAIN spreading false statements and claim that iD
> invented water=reservoir. Please stop doing this.

  Do not copy/paste my words in random order and you will not get such
claims from me :-)

  Anyways, there is no way I will be able to teach IT things people
who do not want to learn. Let's not rewrite the history of this saga
and lets move forward instead of repeating the same discussion again
and again. Let's do what is possible so that this does not happen
again:

  * When tagging schema CAN be changed and when it CAN NOT?
  * What ADVANTAGES are required to allow deprecating current schema?

-- 
Tomas

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging


Dec 13, 2020, 16:35 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> 2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
>
>> 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has
>> been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth.
>>
>
> New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD
> coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
> (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what
> they personally liked, not what was better
>
This is 100% untrue, and you insult people. Stop making such things.

For start, iD authors (also ones that made decisions about tagging
presets that I consider to be mistakes and going against consensus)
had no problem with basics of IT and IT processes of product development.

water=reservoir was launched (created) in 2011
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
iD started in 2012 ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID )

> , and introduced
> water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
> water=reservoir usage was close to zero!
>
See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=reservoir#chronology

Usage in January 2019 was about 200 000 already.

"water=reservoir usage was close to zero" is untrue
 

>  And the only reason for change of stat starting 2019 is because
> coders of iD decided to lie to the users that landuse=reservoir is
> deprecated
>
It is deprecated by 2011 proposal, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation


>  So the change of statistics is not the preference of mappers but
> preference of some nerds.
>
Well, tagging mailing list and community that is engaged in voting
on tagging proposals is not very representative.

But if you care about deprecation decisions you must rely on
people that are engaged in such discussions.

> I would propose to deprecate water=reservoir
>
Feel free to make a proposal that would
revert
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details 

proposal. 


BTW, you are AGAIN spreading false statements and claim that iD
invented water=reservoir. Please stop doing this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-12-13 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
Tomas,

Respectfully, I ask you to cease the pattern of name-calling, personal
attacks, and insulting language used in this forum, and on project bug
trackers[1][2].

Let's please assume good faith and be respectful while we discuss
differences of opinion with an open mind - we are all here for the same
reason - working together to create the best possible map for the world.


[1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17874
[2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> > 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir
> has
> > been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid
> growth.
>
>   New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD
> coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
> (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what
> they personally liked, not what was better, and introduced
> water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
> water=reservoir usage was close to zero!
>
>   And the only reason for change of stat starting 2019 is because
> coders of iD decided to lie to the users that landuse=reservoir is
> deprecated which it never was and started replacing landuse=reservoir
> under their highly controversial disguise of "upgrade tags".
>
>   So the change of statistics is not the preference of mappers but
> preference of some nerds.
>
> > Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water +
> water=reservoir
> > *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir?
>
>   I would propose to deprecate water=reservoir and even more - add
> guards so that such pointless/nerdy duplicate standards would not be
> introduced in the future.
>
>   Note that one of the main nerdy points of this schema was to have a
> possibility to write sql easier (somebody has problems with "and/or")
> and this would also require riverbanks to fall into this new water
> schema. And riverbank clearly does not fall into that even with iD
> lying about it too. Therefore the only point has failed and this
> stupidity is spreading havoc in tagging of such prominent water
> features for more than 10 years now.
>
> P.S. There is quite an easy solution to have a separate iD instance
> for beginners with correct tagging presets loaded.
>
> ___
> 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] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

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

Because otherwise this plague of deprecating existing widespread
schemas (water is not the only impacted area here) in order to bring
some dubious "benefits" will continue. Some people simply do not have
experience and do not understand what is the value of stability and
what are the actual costs of changing something which is already
widespread (for this I like to give an example of highway tag which is
was correct when it was created but is incorrect now, but we do not
change it for the same reason of stability and total cost).

P.S. Stability does not necessarily prohibit freedom of tagging.

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has
> been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth.

  New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD
coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development
(or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what
they personally liked, not what was better, and introduced
water=reservoir as the only way to tag, all this at the time when
water=reservoir usage was close to zero!

  And the only reason for change of stat starting 2019 is because
coders of iD decided to lie to the users that landuse=reservoir is
deprecated which it never was and started replacing landuse=reservoir
under their highly controversial disguise of "upgrade tags".

  So the change of statistics is not the preference of mappers but
preference of some nerds.

> Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water + 
> water=reservoir
> *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir?

  I would propose to deprecate water=reservoir and even more - add
guards so that such pointless/nerdy duplicate standards would not be
introduced in the future.

  Note that one of the main nerdy points of this schema was to have a
possibility to write sql easier (somebody has problems with "and/or")
and this would also require riverbanks to fall into this new water
schema. And riverbank clearly does not fall into that even with iD
lying about it too. Therefore the only point has failed and this
stupidity is spreading havoc in tagging of such prominent water
features for more than 10 years now.

P.S. There is quite an easy solution to have a separate iD instance
for beginners with correct tagging presets loaded.

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
on topic of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

I have strong preference toward version with natural=water,
but landuse=reservoir is clearly still in significant use

on topic of what is deciding for tag popularity


Dec 13, 2020, 15:31 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Brian M. Sperlongano <> zelonew...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water + 
>> water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir?
>>
> The reality is that no matter what it says in the wiki and no matter what
> conclusions we reach on this list, tagging practise is largely determined
> by editor presets.
>
This statement ignores that editor presets are strongly influenced by this
things.

Yes, there were some cases where iD developers
completely or mostly ignored existing documentation 
(at least one ongoing), but this cases were rare and explosive.

> (a very small fraction of users tag
> manually, but most do not).
>
This "very small fraction" is much more active than other
mappers and they have very significant influence on tagging.

Tagging discussions (here and elsewhere), wiki docs,
mappers tagging tags directly have a very big influence
especially for establishing new tags.

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water +
> water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir?
>
> The reality is that no matter what it says in the wiki and no matter what
conclusions we reach on this list, tagging practise is largely determined
by editor presets.  If the user searches for reservoir then how it is
tagged depends on the editor (a very small fraction of users tag
manually, but most do not).

I just tried iD and it gives me natural=water + water=reservoir.  If
the other major editors do the same then the thre choices are:

1) Persuade all the major editors to revert (difficult)

2) Amend the wiki pages to reflect the new reality.

3) Ignore the issue.

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
This story is offered because I find it interesting, and as a possible
catalyst for updates to our tagging documentation.  I offer apologies to
those that are well aware of this controversy.

There are two competing ways to tag reservoirs: landuse=reservoir, or
natural=water + water=reservoir.  The reservoirs near me all used the
"landuse" version, and so I only recently became aware of the difference
when another mapper pointed it out.

landuse=reservoir was the original scheme (first documented on the wiki in
2008), while water=reservoir came about three years later, in an approved
2011 proposal[1] which added the key "water".  To read the voting
commentary, the proposal was mildly controversial: one user described the
vote as rushed, and another cited an issue we still discuss in 2020:
whether there is a difference between water=lake and water=pond!

The proposal noted among other things that "landuse=reservoir [is replaced]
by natural=water + water=reservoir".  It further went on to state:

"Until all renderers (which render those areas differently from
natural=water) support those new values, both schemes can be used together:
just add natural=water and water=* to already present tags."

And so, mappers began mappers began adding the new tags to the map.  In
mid-2011, landuse=reservoir sat at 180K usages while the newly-invented
water=reservoir had near-zero usages.  The proposal described that mappers
should use both tagging schemes until renderer support was achieved, after
which (presumably) landuse=reservoir could be safely removed from these
features (and we could finally stop tagging something that is in reality a
type of water as a type of land!)

Renderer support for natural=water is ubiquitous today.  However, there was
no trigger built in to declare that "renderer support has been achieved",
and the double-tagging went on for *eight years*.  By the end of 2018,
tagging of landuse=reservoir had peaked[2], having racked up 450K usages.
The upstart water=reservoir, while still far behind, had been experiencing
a near-exponential growth curve[3], with 180K usages.

2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir
has been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid
growth.  As of today, landuse=reservoir is down to 384K usages, and
water=reservoir has reached 332K usages.  However -- if we exclude nodes
(as there are a large number of presumably imported landuse=reservoir nodes
still hanging out in the map), water=reservoir is slightly ahead - 331K vs
330K.

Now let's turn to what our wiki has to say about this:

"There was considerable confusion whether landuse=reservoir is deprecated,
but it turned out to be not deprecated and landuse=reservoir is used more
widely than "new" way natural=water + water=reservoir."

This is...an interesting lede for a tagging article to say the least!  The
real story behind this awkwardly-worded statement is in the
landuse=reservoir wiki article history, which documents a 9-year-long
low-grade edit war between pro-landuse and pro-water factions.  The comment
about "considerable confusion" was first added in 2014, and has stuck,
despite several attempts over the years to remove it.

This ends our tale.

Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water +
water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir?


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
[2]
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse=reservoir#chronology
[3]
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=water=reservoir#chronology
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging