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 <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> 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
