Re: "I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate on the large..small and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes and a farmer's stock pond, where the `water=*` value would be uncontroversial."
water=canal is the consensus tag for the area of a canal. There was never a standard way to tag this before, so I would strongly recommend adding this tag for all canals when mapped as an area with natural=water. Similarly, water=lock is uncontroversial and widely used. While there is still some controversy about using water=river + natural=water instead of waterway=riverbank for the area of a river, it is uncontroversial that you should certainly add water=river if you are using natural=water in this case. The same thing goes for reservoirs and basins: you can also use landuse=basin or landuse=reservoir, but if you map them with natural=water it is very helpful to use water=basin or water=reservoir Those values account for most of the uses of water=*... except for water=pond, which is where we started. On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:05 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco <adamfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> - origination:natural=beavers >> >> Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant > sculpting force on the landscape. > > (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water > control structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally) > > Very long story short, I think we might be able to worry a little less >> about what the body of still water *is* and more about its other >> properties that might be of interest. In programming languages this is >> referred to as "duck typing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing>". >> > > If ducks could type, I could easily imagine that a pond might be mapped > and the tags entered by a duck typing. I think that the duck in question > might be Atwood's Duck. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality#Related_principles_and_formulations > > And ... having seen this argument several times before, I basically avoid > `water=*` when mapping. I can hardly think of any waterbody, intermediate > on the large..small and natural..artificial scales between the Great Lakes > and a farmer's stock pond, where the `water=*` value would be > uncontroversial. `natural=water` renders, and I'll try to avoid taking a > census of the angels dancing on that particular pinhead. > > This whole discussion reminds me of one time that someone who wasn't from > around here (nor a native speaker) was insisting that anything that was > called a 'creek' in English *must* be a tiny watercourse. Not around here! > The creek in question was, if memory serves, either the Schoharie Creek, > shown in this picture: > http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/images/schoharie_falls.jpg or > else the West Canada Creek > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Canada_Creek#/media/File:Aug_2011_Ft_Noble_Mtn.JPG > I'm comfortable with `waterway=river` on any waterway where I map the > riverbank. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg < >>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Re: is water=* tag needed? >>>> >>> >>> >>>> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs >>>> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not >>>> providing this information. Since the previous tagging system clearly >>>> distinguished natural from man-made water bodies, this would be a loss for >>>> database quality. >>>> >>> >>> We often do not know if it is natural or artificial. Maybe it's a >>> natural >>> depression in the ground that fills with water. Maybe it was created >>> by man as a water feature. Maybe it's an old quarry that has flooded. >>> Even if it was originally a result of something like quarrying it may >>> have >>> happened so long ago that there are no records. >>> >>> What we can determine (at least in principle) is if it meets criteria >>> for a lake (large size or large waves or has aphotic zones) or a >>> pond. In principle, a suitably-qualified mapper could investigate >>> those things on site. We can accept using guesswork based on >>> size pending fuller investigation. A lake/pond distinction is >>> useful irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or entirely >>> artificial. >>> >>> Determining if it's entirely natural, or deliberately man-made, or >>> an unintended consequence of past human activity is harder. >>> Possible for retention basins that are still in use. Mostly >>> possible for reservoirs, although some reservoirs are >>> based around natural lakes. But historical records are >>> incomplete (and some mappers insist we should never >>> ever make use of historical data to inform our mapping). >>> >>> Maybe we need an artificial=yes/no. >>> >>> -- >>> Paul >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > 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
