2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
> (just added)
Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
My arguments on the points you've added:
1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
(totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
water scheme.
2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
how these classes are CAPTURED.
Did I miss anything?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
