On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 2013/6/6 Greg Troxel <[email protected]> > >> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
