That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature with basin=retention
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, > because they're mounded up above the ground eg > > https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg > > For a full explanation: > https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume <josephguilla...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That Wikipedia page is right. >> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall >> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of >> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction >> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me. >> >> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this >> is the intended tag. Thanks! >> >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, < >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
