Render man_made=reservoir_covered areas

[stragu]

It would be great to have objects tagged with man_made=reservoir_covered being rendered. There is currently about 123000 ways tagged with it in the database.

Example object: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17740394
See a satellite image to see the object. It is a significant structure in the landscape.

How it is currently (not) rendered on the default renderer:

Issues that might be linked to this:

• Covered reservoirs #1167
• Suggestion for man_made=storage_tank #588

[pnorman]

Any suggestions on how to render it?

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 26. Apr 2017, at 20:42, Paul Norman ***@***.***> wrote: Any suggestions on how to render it?

like a man_made=storage_tank ?

[stragu]

Any suggestions on how to render it?

like a man_made=storage_tank ?

That sounds sensible. Both of those objects are hard to decide on how to render them according to their physical appearance because it varies so much. I would be happy to see it rendered in the same way as storage tanks (which currently is the same as generic buildings, right?).

[mboeringa]

A lot of these are covered by grass, in rare cases with some form of park above. So if anything alternative needs to be developed, that may be kept in mind.

Rendering it simply as buildings is probably not bad though...

[imagico]

A bit of additional info here:

• man_made=reservoir_covered has 5k uses on nodes, 15k on ways (of which 6k have a building tag).
• man_made=storage_tank has 55k uses on nodes, 123k uses on ways (of which 82k have a building tag).
• building=storage_tank has 18k uses half of which also feature man_made=storage_tank.

The example shown seems to be a building. I wonder if there are practical examples of covered reservoirs where neither building=yes nor location=underground apply.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 26. Apr 2017, at 23:35, Christoph Hormann ***@***.***> wrote: The example shown seems to be a building. I wonder if there are practical examples of covered reservoirs where neither building=yes nor location=underground apply.

it depends on your definition of building. For osm all of these are likely buildings, while technically in a strict sense none of them is. Or were you aiming at natural reservoirs with natural cover, e.g. a cave used for water storage? As a side note, I wonder why the tag is reservoir_covered and not covered_reservoir. strange it isn't?

[imagico]

Note i was asking for practical real world examples - independent on what definition of building this is based on.

[mboeringa]

The example shown seems to be a building. I wonder if there are practical examples of covered reservoirs where neither building=yes nor location=underground apply.

Depends on what you call a building and underground. I think this example from the Netherlands is pretty typical for some:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/De_Waterdruppel.jpg/600px-De_Waterdruppel.jpg

[imagico]

That is like the sample image on the wiki - just in larger. To me that is location=underground, even if the ground is banked up rather than it being dug into the ground.

[mboeringa]

And then there are the monstrous big ones like the Réservoir de Montsouris in Paris:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9servoir_de_Montsouris

which is currently tagged as building:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/79804222

[imagico]

Same situation. Incidentally this well illustrates that the only thing that makes features like that possibly not be considered a building is that it is located underground. Kind of proves the point i think that a covered reservoir will either be a building or be located underground.

This of course does not mean it should not be rendered, just it has some implications on how it should be rendered.

[dieterdreist]

2017-04-27 11:42 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <notifications@github.com>:

Same situation. Incidentally this well illustrates that the only thing that makes features like that possibly not be considered a building is that it is located underground. Kind of proves the point i think that a covered reservoir will either be a building or be located underground.

there's no reason an underground structure couldn't be considered a building. Well, there might be definitions that require it from reaching out above the ground, but typically this is not a requirement. Where do you get it from?

[hholzgra]

About half of the covered reservoirs in my area have a small operations building on to, so mapping the actual reservoir as a building would end up with a building on top of a building. This could of course be solved by using different layer=... values for the actual reservoir and the operations building, but somehow that still feels wrong ...

[dieterdreist]

2018-02-17 14:21 GMT+01:00 Hartmut Holzgraefe <notifications@github.com>:

About half of the covered reservoirs in my area have a small operations building on to, so mapping the actual reservoir as a building would end up with a building on top of a building. This could of course be solved by using different layer=... values for the actual reservoir and the operations building, but somehow that still feels wrong ...

I don't see a problem with a building on top of another building.

[matthijsmelissen]

See also #1167.

[jragusa]

If we consider underground building as figured on the wiki page of man_made=reservoir_covered, JOSM shows these features with a blue dashed line without filling. This would be consistent with the suggestion of @Tomasz-W in #552 for underground buildings.

[jragusa]

For example :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/69582545
z=19

z=18

[kocio-pl]

This rendering resembles track or some other kind of highway more than building to me.

[Tomasz-W]

I think this feature should be rendered just the same as other underground buildings (#552)

[pnorman]

We're using blue dashed lines for other features already.

[chazanov]

@jragsusa: May you please publish your changes to the style for the blue lines rendering?

[kocio-pl]

Maybe we should just render an icon+label, because cover can be anything - a building (so it should be tagged as a building) or some underground construction. No matter what we will do with rendering underground objects, it makes sense to show what is there.

Something like two waves with a roof is what might work for the icon shape.

[jragusa]

My purpose is indeed to use the same rendering than underground buildings because we can deduce the shape of this feature since it's frequently semi-buried. A label is not useful because they do not have necessarily a name (at least in France).