Proposal talk:Wetland areas

general comments

• Ulf just pointed to this on the talk list. I am no expert in this area, but it looks good and gets my support. One simple tag and optional more specific catagories, I like that. My interest is mapping tropical mangrove. MikeCollinson 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like this proposal: good options and a wide range of use. Will sometimes be used with leisure=nature_reserve and as such adds value. Chillly 15:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone! According to my opinion the "bog" one would be very useful for Russian users. We have a lot of peatbogs here :) Like this one: big moss

dry river bed question

Would "wetland=riverbed, seasonal=heavy_rainfall" be suitable to tag a riverbed which is mostly dry and may have a small river or stream embedded, but which transforms into a full size raging white water during heavy rainfall, like typhoons? In Taiwan we have lots of such "rivers". IMHO it would not be appropriate to tag them as "river", as they are mostly dry. They usually have dykes on both shores. Rendering could be white background with blue dots, same blueish like for rivers. Mixmaxtw 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the soil in that area is nevertheless wet or if there are puddles of water for an extended period of time while the river water level is low, I would assume that “wetland” would be appropriate for such a place; if it is (for example) rather a dry, rocky canyon when precipitation is low, I wouldn't call it a “wetland”. However, "riverbed" might not be the best choice (maybe "floodplain"?); if there is a river-like waterway for some time after flooding, it should stay "waterway=river", maybe with "seasonal=yes" or something like that (discuss this under Tag:waterway=river?) Ulf Mehlig 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested changes

• I would explain "bog" as: "waterlogged area fed by precipitation or ground water, accumulating peat", and "mangrove" as "tidal forests of salt-tolerant trees forming along tropical coastlines". Why does "marsh" occur twice? Ulf Mehlig 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Applied the suggested changes. --Ulf Mehlig 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I added "reedbed" (the original author apparently wanted to include reed vegetation under "marsh" but marsh vegetation is usually low (<1 m), while wetlands with tall (>2 m) plants like reed (Phragmites), bulrush (Typha) etc. make a rather different landscape. I further added mud flats, differing from all other wetlands listed here by being mostly or completely bare of vegetation. However, mud flats are usually considered wetlands, and are of great importance for wildlife. I further copied the template from "highway" and added a photo ... Are we ±ready to vote? --Ulf Mehlig 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are clay flats the same as mud flats? How should a clay flat be tagged? There was one not far from where I grew up, where the sea came all the way up to the woods on high tide, but on low tide a large field appeared. There was a few creaks passing, though the actual run of the creaks changed over time. There was a few islets there that was possible to reach with dry shoes on low tide. --Skippern 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not familiar with "clay flats". There are of course various types of sediment which differ in granule size between sandy and clayey but mud flat seems to be the term more generally used ... should we change this simply to tidal flat? Mud-, sand-, clay-flat, that's maybe too specific for our purpose here, isn't it? --Ulf Mehlig 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tidal flat is probably better as it fathoms more. If we get too specific, than the tag might be too comprihandable to be used. --Skippern 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Foot access

Since it's already in use but perhaps not apparent, we could add a description along the lines of

You can use foot=no for wetlands not traversable on foot.

At least the Finnish swamps and marshes are more often traversable than not, although with uncrossable areas. Perhaps the default should be discussed.

For more complex rules (tidalflat that can't be crossed when the tide is high, nor in autumn) a separate proposal is needed. There's actually an (abandoned) proposal Proposed_features/Dry_weather but now it needs some work to define the ambiguities. Alv 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rendering

I suggest this to be rendered as a white area with light blue dots and/or dashes, maybe even with both vertical and horizontal dashes to break up the pattern. It should be something in between land and water. --Skippern 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like this,

but maybe we should defer this discussion to some date after voting ... --Ulf Mehlig 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Management (copied some older stuff to this section)

• I like it. What would the values of management=* be? Might it be better as a separate proposal? It seems that it would apply to forest as well, and probably several other natural=* tags. --Hawke 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, management is not wetland-specific and should probably considered separately. However, does this have to be removed from this page? --Ulf Mehlig 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• management=* should rather be managed=*true/false. Could also be opened for more types of wetlands. --Skippern 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed that. --Ulf Mehlig 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the tags where you have things like managed=* it might be better to say what values are valid. Is it only yes or no, or can users add any information they like as the value? All the best, Ed (from an email by Ed Loach)

Problems with the subkeys

1. There is already a approved solution for managed=*:

• natural=wetland (natural=wood)
• landuse=wetland (landuse=forest)

2. I think the description keys tidal=* and seasonal=* should be better used as sub-keys. I.e.

• wetland:tidal=*
• wetland:seasonal=*

3. The tidal and seasonal keys are missing a value-description! --Phobie 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what a pity that you did not come up with this during the RFC period. (1) I thought "landuse" would be used for areas where agri-/silvicultural uses are dominant. Wetland management could be that (e.g., mangrove plantations in Malaysia for charcoal production) but could also mean that the current state of the area is artificially maintained or enhanced to protect endangered species (water level, type of vegetation etc.). This is probably not what I would associate with "landuse". (2) there is not much information about the advantages of subkeys on the wiki - could you elaborate on that? If it technically makes sense, we could adapt the proposal later accordingly (3) ok, this is a failure that should have been fixed before voting. Thanks for the comments. --Ulf Mehlig 11:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As the originator of this proposal way back, managed was indeed intened to refer to the way the wetland environment was maintained

(i.e water levels controled, SSSI , reed cutting etc) as opposed to cultivation use..ShakespeareFan00 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)