Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
On 11.06.2013 16:05, fly wrote: Am 11.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Greg Troxel: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs would be class eleven or 15. Class eleven is for drinking water like your example below. Class 15 is fro flodding like my example. This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think boundary=protected_area is off. The basic issue is that we (I) are trying to denote landuse, not boundary. Rendering the inside of a boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me; boundaries are linear features. And protected_area is a kitchen sink concept. They define an area like a national reserve or park but also low priority protections. Please think of a flooding area which primary landuse might be forest or meadow. I was looking for a more tighter definition of landuse=reservoir which would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a tool shed. I think this is the crux of the issue. I am referring to reservoirs which are hard to tell from lakes, other than the public water supply - no trespassing signs. So the water is tagged with water=reservoir (access=no) and we need a landuse value for the primary area around it. I do not like reservoir_protection though. Can we find a different name as I was thinking about protected areas. Maybe something simple like reservoir_ground or _area. We could also use landuse=reservoir_landuse as an temporary tag and change it back after the data clean up. (~ two years). fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
How do we go from here? Can someone write a summary? Could someone please state the results in the wiki? Thank you. Wie geht es nun weiter? Kann jemand eine Zusammenfassung schreiben? Könnte bitte jemand die Ergebnisse im Wiki dokumentieren? Vielen Dank. Gruß René ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Hi, On 20.06.2013 00:22, René Kirchhoff wrote: Could someone please state the results in the wiki? I have already un-deprecated the tag on the wiki two weeks ago. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/20 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Hi, On 20.06.2013 00:22, René Kirchhoff wrote: Could someone please state the results in the wiki? I have already un-deprecated the tag on the wiki two weeks ago. I had shortly after set the tag status from abandoned to approved, but someone told me it should better be de-facto (if this is a common status I'd agree, indeed I thought the tag was approved by active use regardless of votings) and I was told that the deprecation was (besides other stuff) decided here: Proposed features/Water detailshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details and that *natural=water + water=reservoir *should be use instead (btw.: don't agree, landuse and physical characteristics are orthogonal properties). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs would be class eleven or 15. This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think boundary=protected_area is off. The basic issue is that we (I) are trying to denote landuse, not boundary. Rendering the inside of a boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me; boundaries are linear features. And protected_area is a kitchen sink concept. I was looking for a more tight definition of landuse=reservoir which would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a tool shed. I think this is the crux of the issue. I am referring to reservoirs which are hard to tell from lakes, other than the public water supply - no trespassing signs. pgpvxuCRTeBBq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 11.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Greg Troxel: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs would be class eleven or 15. Class eleven is for drinking water like your example below. Class 15 is fro flodding like my example. This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think boundary=protected_area is off. The basic issue is that we (I) are trying to denote landuse, not boundary. Rendering the inside of a boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me; boundaries are linear features. And protected_area is a kitchen sink concept. They define an area like a national reserve or park but also low priority protections. Please think of a flooding area which primary landuse might be forest or meadow. I was looking for a more tighter definition of landuse=reservoir which would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a tool shed. I think this is the crux of the issue. I am referring to reservoirs which are hard to tell from lakes, other than the public water supply - no trespassing signs. So the water is tagged with water=reservoir (access=no) and we need a landuse value for the primary area around it. I do not like reservoir_protection though. Can we find a different name as I was thinking about protected areas. Maybe something simple like reservoir_ground or _area. My two ct fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/11 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think boundary=protected_area is off. The basic issue is that we (I) are trying to denote landuse, not boundary. Rendering the inside of a boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me; boundaries are linear features. if this is your only problem with that tag, you won't have to render the boundary, you could conceptionally see it as rendering what is delimited by the boundary. And protected_area is a kitchen sink concept. could you expand on this? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 08.06.2013 23:07, schrieb Greg Troxel: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: But how to we proceed ? If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them? Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either on the same object or within one. Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs would be class eleven or 15. Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing. Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing. That tag denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is object tagging, not landuse tagging. Does this make anyone significantly unhappy? I was looking for a more tight definition of landuse=reservoir which would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a tool shed. cu fly --- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
This approach sounds useful. Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: But how to we proceed ? If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them? Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either on the same object or within one. Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing. Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing. That tag denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is object tagging, not landuse tagging. Does this make anyone significantly unhappy? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: I'd rather prefer to have the water protection as a different tag then landuse, something like protected_area, because my guess is that reservoir protection is not necessarily the only or main landuse of any such area with obligations to protect the ground from water contamination. Perhaps in some cases, but I'm referring to land that is obviously wooded and left alone, with no trespassing signs, and no other apparent use. If the protection is secondary, then it's not that important. But this is not that important, compared to straightening out the confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 07.06.2013 15:49, schrieb Greg Troxel: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess. If you agree that landuse=reservoir doesn't necessarily need to be water on the whole area, then it seems logical to require a water-tag on the actual water covered area to render blue. As long as the main style puts so much emphasis on landuse people will continue to map areas mainly with landuse and use very less frequent the physical tags which are not rendered. This essentially was the point I was trying to make: when humans see landuse=reservoir, they think it means different things 1) parcel containing protection zone and water, arguably to be shaded some light green natural/protected. should have water=reservoir on the actual water, to be blue 2) what is water=reservoir in 1, and thus should be blue That's why I suggested landuse=reservoir_protection instead, but that should include the water so it's not right etiher. I'm fine with landuse=reservoir, but then as always it needs to be clear and renderers need to catch up. But how to we proceed ? If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them? Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either on the same object or within one. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: But how to we proceed ? If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them? Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either on the same object or within one. Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing. Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing. That tag denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is object tagging, not landuse tagging. Does this make anyone significantly unhappy? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/8 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing. Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing. That tag denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is object tagging, not landuse tagging. I'd rather prefer to have the water protection as a different tag then landuse, something like protected_area, because my guess is that reservoir protection is not necessarily the only or main landuse of any such area with obligations to protect the ground from water contamination. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: But how to we proceed ? If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them? Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either on the same object or within one. Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose: Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir and protection zones. (I have an attitude that landuse will often align with parcel boundaries.) Let landuse=reservoir be deprecated, because it's confusing. Let water=reservoir be used, because it is not confusing. That tag denots the fact that the area is a) water and b) a reservoir, which is object tagging, not landuse tagging. +1 I agree that landuse=reservoir is confusing and we should use a different tag for the water itself and a different tag that includes the surrounding land area. Whether that land area is a landuse=* or not is something we all still need to agree on. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ? Interestingly this seems to be a case of fiddling by admin, as the user setting this to abandoned is a wiki admin according to his wiki user page. FYI, I reset the tag to Approved, as a 260362 uses tag can hardly be called abandoned without any discussion. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/7 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ? Interestingly this seems to be a case of fiddling by admin, as the user setting this to abandoned is a wiki admin according to his wiki user page. FYI, I reset the tag to Approved, as a 260362 uses tag can hardly be called abandoned without any discussion. please excuse me, no fiddling by admin, as the user wasn't yet wiki admin when he performed the disputed edit. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess. If you agree that landuse=reservoir doesn't necessarily need to be water on the whole area, then it seems logical to require a water-tag on the actual water covered area to render blue. As long as the main style puts so much emphasis on landuse people will continue to map areas mainly with landuse and use very less frequent the physical tags which are not rendered. This essentially was the point I was trying to make: when humans see landuse=reservoir, they think it means different things 1) parcel containing protection zone and water, arguably to be shaded some light green natural/protected. should have water=reservoir on the actual water, to be blue 2) what is water=reservoir in 1, and thus should be blue That's why I suggested landuse=reservoir_protection instead, but that should include the water so it's not right etiher. I'm fine with landuse=reservoir, but then as always it needs to be clear and renderers need to catch up. pgpcn4owKdZ11.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
I want to call a few facts in mind: - We have an old attribute landuse = reservoir. This is very much in use. - We have a proposal Water detail. This was approved in voting by a large majority. This proposal includes: waterway=riverbank (replaced by natural=water + water=river) landuse=reservoir (replaced by natural=water + water=reservoir) landuse=pond (replaced by natural=water + water=pond) and: 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. 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. Many users have decided together for this new approach. This result should be respected by all of us. Finally, it was at that time already been discussed extensively over the content. Why do we resist again bring this discussion now? The proposal is unique and clearly understandable. The desire of the community should follow, and document decisions made in the wiki accordingly. This also means that there is a successor to landuse=reservoir. My assumption was that you know the decision of the community. Apparently this is not so, otherwise this discussion would not be necessary. Sincerely yours René Thanks to Google Translate for the translation of my German contribution. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
On 06.06.2013 23:55, fly wrote: We should use both landuse and water. The first for the whole area and the later for the water area. [...] Better use boolean (e.g. intermittent=yes/no). Maybe editors should warn or silently change these tags. Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ? Because the Water details proposal¹ included the deprecation. It was even mentioned on this list that the proposal included deprecation - although learning which tags exactly were proposed for deprecation required clicking the wiki link iirc. Still, the deprecations should not be as a surprise to anybody participating here. The proposal also notes that water=reservoir is supposed to be synonymous to landuse=reservoir, which directly contradicts the interpretation brought forward here. Using intermittent=yes/no seems sensible, though - and it was also mentioned in the Water details proposal. Tobias ¹ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de writes: Because the Water details proposal¹ included the deprecation. It was even mentioned on this list that the proposal included deprecation - although learning which tags exactly were proposed for deprecation required clicking the wiki link iirc. Still, the deprecations should not be as a surprise to anybody participating here. The proposal also notes that water=reservoir is supposed to be synonymous to landuse=reservoir, which directly contradicts the interpretation brought forward here. Trying to not worry too much about the past, two things are clear: A) there is much confusion over what landuse=reservoir means or should mean B) there is no documented landuse tagging to describe a parcel that contains a (land) buffer and water that is a reservoir. So what landuse is appropriate for the parcel? pgp80ZpQNIqAd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 07.06.2013 16:20, schrieb René Kirchhoff: I want to call a few facts in mind: - We have an old attribute landuse = reservoir. This is very much in use. - We have a proposal Water detail. This was approved in voting by a large majority. 16:3 is a poor result for voting activity This proposal includes: waterway=riverbank (replaced by natural=water + water=river) landuse=reservoir (replaced by natural=water + water=reservoir) landuse=pond (replaced by natural=water + water=pond) and: 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. 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. Many users have decided together for this new approach. This result should be respected by all of us. Finally, it was at that time already been discussed extensively over the content. That is not what taginfo presents. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=water#values Why do we resist again bring this discussion now? The proposal is unique and clearly understandable. The desire of the community should follow, and document decisions made in the wiki accordingly. This also means that there is a successor to landuse=reservoir. There where unanswered questions on this list and no real discussion. I only find: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/7247/focus=7309 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/8547/focus=8556 Can someone please show me the conclusion on this list as I do not find it. My assumption was that you know the decision of the community. Apparently this is not so, otherwise this discussion would not be necessary. That is exactly the point. What is the community for you. I would always discuss these major edits prior on this list. The numbers on taginfo lead to a different view: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=reservoir http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=reservoir it is still 27:1 towards landuse=reservoir Once we get to a decision we need to change the wiki and also inform the developer of the editors as I only stumbled over this issue cause of: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/8759 cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 07.06.2013 15:11, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/6/7 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com 2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ? Interestingly this seems to be a case of fiddling by admin, as the user setting this to abandoned is a wiki admin according to his wiki user page. FYI, I reset the tag to Approved, as a 260362 uses tag can hardly be called abandoned without any discussion. please excuse me, no fiddling by admin, as the user wasn't yet wiki admin when he performed the disputed edit. Still he is admin now and I won`t accept these kind of changes even made by a normal user. Do not get me wrong I did mail him a private message asking to revert his changes but the answer was not really acceptable and made me angry so I started this discussion. Frederik did change the page in the mean time and he did start to participate in this discussion. Well, let's get a solution, finally. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water). The purpose of the land is 1) to contain the reservoir and 2) to provide a buffer around it. Often it is signed public water supply -- no trespassing. Looks like a perfectly valid case where the whole area should be landuse=reservoir, but only a subset of the enclosed area is actually water (as the buffer is a legally integral part of the reservoir it seems logical to include it into the landuse). Originally, the MassGIS openspace import had these land parcels tagged as landuse=reservoir, which made them all blue. Yes, but this is another problem (specific rendering rules). Even if sometimes it looks like it was, the rendering on the main page isn't the measure of all things(?). IMHO the main mapnik style is overemphasizing landuses, where actually other area tags would be more interesting for many map users, e.g. place-areas, landcover areas, etc., this would also prevent us from senseless tags like landuse=grass. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/6/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water). The purpose of the land is 1) to contain the reservoir and 2) to provide a buffer around it. Often it is signed public water supply -- no trespassing. Looks like a perfectly valid case where the whole area should be landuse=reservoir, but only a subset of the enclosed area is actually water (as the buffer is a legally integral part of the reservoir it seems logical to include it into the landuse). Originally, the MassGIS openspace import had these land parcels tagged as landuse=reservoir, which made them all blue. Yes, but this is another problem (specific rendering rules). Even if sometimes it looks like it was, the rendering on the main page isn't the measure of all things(?). IMHO the main mapnik style is overemphasizing landuses, where actually other area tags would be more interesting for many map users, e.g. place-areas, landcover areas, etc., this would also prevent us from senseless tags like landuse=grass. cheers, Martin We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess. Toby ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess. If you agree that landuse=reservoir doesn't necessarily need to be water on the whole area, then it seems logical to require a water-tag on the actual water covered area to render blue. As long as the main style puts so much emphasis on landuse people will continue to map areas mainly with landuse and use very less frequent the physical tags which are not rendered. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Am 06.06.2013 18:39, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess. If you agree that landuse=reservoir doesn't necessarily need to be water on the whole area, then it seems logical to require a water-tag on the actual water covered area to render blue. As long as the main style puts so much emphasis on landuse people will continue to map areas mainly with landuse and use very less frequent the physical tags which are not rendered. +1 We should use both landuse and water. The first for the whole area and the later for the water area. We still have a problem with water=* as it is used as water_geometry_type but also to describe the coverage [1]. This proposal was deprecated but taginfo [2] might lead to a different view. Better use boolean (e.g. intermittent=yes/no). Maybe editors should warn or silently change these tags. Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ? Cheers fly -- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_cover [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=water#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes: When was landuse=reservoir [1] deprecated ? There was only little discussion on tagging@ about water=* [2][3]. Now we have to different uses which do not fit together (eg, water=lake;intermittent ?). Anyway landuse=reservoir was never deprecated and has 20+ uses and might not be exact equal to water=reservoir. There is no problem with using both tags at the same time. I'm not objecting to using both, but landuse=reservoir has a messy history in Massachusetts, and is inherently confusing. water=reservoir is pretty clearly appropriate for the area that is actually water (looks like a lake). The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water). The purpose of the land is 1) to contain the reservoir and 2) to provide a buffer around it. Often it is signed public water supply -- no trespassing. Originally, the MassGIS openspace import had these land parcels tagged as landuse=reservoir, which made them all blue. Then they got retagged, I think to landuse=reservoir_protection. So I have seen landuse=reservoir_protection, landuse=reservoir_watershed, and other things. Because of that, I think landuse=reservoir should be avoided, because it's likely to be misinterpreted. I don't like reservoir_watershed either, because properly that's not a landuse, but an area that happens to drain into a reservoir, and is something that doesn't seem to fit OSM. The pednant in me would want landuse=reservoir_protection for the land buffer around a reservoir, landuse=reservoir *and* water=reservoir for the water, and landuse=water_works for land used for equipment. But I think putting landuse=reservoir_protection around the whole parcel and water=reservoir on the water is necessary and sufficient. I'm not arguging for running a bot - just that with landuse=reservoir it is hard to be sure one understands what was meant. pgpga2RegzpPK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?
Hey When was landuse=reservoir [1] deprecated ? There was only little discussion on tagging@ about water=* [2][3]. Now we have to different uses which do not fit together (eg, water=lake;intermittent ?). Anyway landuse=reservoir was never deprecated and has 20+ uses and might not be exact equal to water=reservoir. There is no problem with using both tags at the same time. Cheers fly -- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=reservoir [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/7247/focus=7309 [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/8547/focus=8556 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
