What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American English.
Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir) -- Joseph Eisenberg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote: > This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir. > > It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've > personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach. > > I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being > sure what subtag to use. > I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I definitely > don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally and > functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large reservoirs. > > Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd expect. > The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and I'd > therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences. > water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that. > > One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally, > which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are > constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map > systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a > render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping. > > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, <tomasstrau...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
