--Skippern 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I like this kind of repeated specialisation generally. +1 on this form, -1 on yes/no (unless you really can have both in the same mapped area: I'm no hydrogeologist!) --achadwick 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only areas
Most of the infiltrtion units I know are more linear - less than 5 m wide. Must I map that as an area? See the Dutch wadi above.
BTW: What about rainwater retention? Infiltration units should have overflow to a sewer. Rainwater retention basins do not only control the flow, but infiltrate too. How to distinguish with tags? --nkbre 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- For rainwater retention basins, one could use a new tag for the basin key (landuse=basin basin=retention), but I think the rainwater retention feature is part of the "normal" basin.
- I do not know more or less linear infiltration units, the most units I saw looked more like a dry basin. If the infiltration basin is small, it should be mapped as single node (equivalent to a "normal" basin). I did not add this to the proposal, but I will add it now. --Quelbs 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
infiltration / detention / retention
- in addition to old discussion: all three are different. See basin=* for links to english wikipedia (or german one). I just added different rendering from landuse=basin without basin=* in Osmarender because of a detention basin which is normally used for sport and should not be rendered totally blue .. ;-) --Mueck 23:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)