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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
