>> Water proposal tried to change the tagging: >> landuse=reservoir => natural=water|water=reservoir >> And in general all water landuse=x => natural=water|water=x (basin, pond >> etc.) >> waterway=riverbank => natural=water|water=riverbank > No. > The water proposal didn't change or deprecate anything, and that is explicitly > stated on both the proposal and water=* wiki pages.
Either you're lying, or... it is ok to change landuse=reservoir status from debated to VALID then? The part in your proposal about deprecating landuse/riverbank parts was... mistake... fun... local "referendum"? :-) > 1. It reassures that it's okay to tag any body of water visible > <blabalbla> So YOU thought that it suits YOUR understanding better and so screw those thousands of hundreds of objects already marked. Yes? Less than one year of participation in OSM for you was enough to get the whole idea? > Data consumers will have to live with two tagging schemes, > as that is the way OSM works. It does not have to be that terrible way (it was not before your proposal). Data consumers deserve better data. Which we do have if selfish people do not screw it up. -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
