Proposal:Evaporation basin

Evaporation basin
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	ZeLonewolf
Tagging:	basin=evaporation Data item
Applies to:
Definition:	A basin used to evaporate water
Statistics:
Draft started:	2021-01-17
RFC start:	2021-01-31
Vote start:	2021-02-18
Vote end:	2021-03-04

Proposal

An evaporation pond or evaporation basin is a basin containing water containing a dissolved substance (precipitate). These basins are used for the following purposes:

• Evaporating the water in order to harvest the precipitate
• Evaporating the water at contaminated sites remove the water from hazardous waste, which greatly reduces its weight and volume and allows the waste to be more easily transported, treated and stored.
• Evaporating the precipitation that falls on a contaminated site. The contaminants that the water picks up on the ground are left behind after it evaporates. This prevents the contamination from spreading further down the watershed.
• Preventing pesticides, fertilizers and salts from agricultural wastewater from contaminating the water bodies they would flow into.

The following tagging is proposed for evaporation basins:

• The existing approved tag landuse=salt_pond continues to be used for basins that are used for extracting salt from water.
• The tag basin=evaporation is approved for basins used to evaporate water for all other purposes. This tag is combined with either landuse=basin or natural=water + water=basin.
• The tag reservoir_type=evaporator is deprecated.

An evaporation basin is distinct from a tailings pond, tagged man_made=tailings_pond, which is specifically used to remediate liquid waste resulting from a mining operation.

Note: this proposal takes no position on whether basins should be tagged landuse=basin or natural=water + water=basin.

Rationale

1. The current tagging and documentation for evaporation basins (reservoir_type=evaporator) is unclear as to whether they should be tagged as a reservoir or a basin. Since both reservoir and basin are intended for water, this resolves the ambiguity by categorizing evaporation basins as a basin feature.
2. Evaporation basins and ponds are not considered reservoirs in common usage. Evaporation basins should not be grouped with bodies of water used for traditional water storage.
3. There is a community consensus that these bodies of water should be tagged as a basin rather than a reservoir.
4. Based on consensus gained through tagging list discussions, even though these features are normally called evaporation ponds in normal usage, they are closer in characteristics to other features in basin=*, such as basin=retention, basin=detention, basin=infiltration, and the proposed basin=cooling than they are to water=pond.

Tagging

Evaporation basins can be difficult to discern from other bodies of water. These basins are normally identifiable by their association with an industrial, agricultural, or public works facility which performs water evaporation as part of their function.

An evaporation basin is, by definition, sometimes wet and sometimes dry. Thus, it is unnecessary to add the tag intermittent=yes.

The following table lists additional tagging that is suggested for tagging features in and around evaporation basins. This list is non-exhaustive and is provided as a helpful reference to mappers:

Tag	Used for
natural=water + water=basin or landuse=basin	Required tagging for all basins.
basin=evaporation	The evaporation basin, at the typical high water mark.
resource=*	Specific materials that are being extracted from the water.
man_made=dyke	A dyke or levee which is holding back or encircling an evaporation basin.
man_made=water_works landuse=farmland landuse=industrial landuse=quarry	The overall land use of the site which includes the evaporation basin.
hazard=contamination	Indicates that the evaporation basin is hazardous.

If the mapper is able to identify a body of water as an evaporation basin, it can be tagged natural=water + water=basin or landuse=basin, combined with basin=evaporation. If the specific use of the basin cannot be determined, the mapper can still tag the body of water as a basin (using one of the two options), but without the basin=evaporation. If the mapper is not even able to determine whether the body of water is a basin, it can simply be tagged natural=water.

Rendering

Renderers should assume that all evaporation basins are intermittent, and make rendering decisions accordingly.

Examples

The following evaporation basins are used for a variety of industrial uses:

OSM Element	Used for
784329044 784329044	Petroleum
767901197 767901197	Ethanol
768656014 768656014	Sugar/alcohol
768573882 768573882	Incineration
4784244 4784244	Potash
499717495 499717495	Potash
801913350 801913350	Coal power plant
666401681 666401681	Water purification

Photos

• 

  Potash evaporation pond, Moab, Utah.

• 

  Leachate evaporation pond at a municipal landfill.

• 

  Evaporation basins in the former Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, used to remove selenium from river water.

• 

  Farm evaporation ponds

Applies to

Features/Pages affected

Page	Change
basin=*	Add a new key evaporation for evaporation basins
basin=evaporation	Create this page
reservoir_type=*	Mark the value reservoir_type=evaporator as deprecated.

External discussions

• tagging, Jan 2021 Evaporation ponds

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Prior Votes

Vote suspended due to issues discovered after the vote started ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I approve this proposal. Evaporation ponds are different from reservoirs, and should have their own tagging. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. (changed from "yes" due to barrier=berm)--501ghost (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. (changed from "yes" due to barrier=berm) --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --BubbaJuice (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. One step towards deprecating reservoir_type=* as a whole. --Mxdanger (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Tagging specificity is a good tool in the pocket of renderers and other consumers, too. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Stevea (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The most used term in all applications (engineering, industrial, agriculture) is ponds, not basins. Quarry as major landuse is not listed. Promotes the use of berm instead of dyke. The barrier to hold the water is a dyke, not a berm. Hazard = contamination is contamination of the environment, not specifically to human health. Minor comment: In the examples "Used for" should be "Used with (manufacturing or production of)". --Bert Araali (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that basin=evaporation was chosen as a new value in the already existing basin=* key, which already includes basin=retention, basin=detention, basin=infiltration, and the nascent basin=cooling. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I did, but with 20 years of experience in the sector as engineer and project manager I considered it as "less suitable". Not in conjunction with what was defined in OSM in the past but also when sites get detailed you will find mostly f.i. in description or even name tags that it will be called a pond. That alone is not my only objection, together with wrong optional use or description of berm and contamination convinced me this is too quick and dirty. I remain with opposing this proposal. Bert Araali (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. This is a good addition. Glassman (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mashin (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. -- I support this proposal, except for the suggestion to use the new tag barrier=berm. Perhaps you meant to include man_made=embankment or man_made=dyke instead? --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made the change and notified the tagging mailing list[1]. If anyone feels that this invalidates the proposal, please let me know so I can restart the vote. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote, 2nd Round (18 Feb 2021)

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 31 votes for, 0 votes against and 1 abstention.

There is clear consensus to approve tagging for evaporation basins and deprecate alternative approaches.

• I approve this proposal. Thanks for changing "berm" to "dyke!" --Dr Centerline (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Evaporation ponds are different from reservoirs, and should have their own tagging. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Thanks for considering my remarks in the previous vote. Although in the tech world these are mostly called evaporation ponds and even often carry specific names including "pond" which might be added by a mapper, I can and have to live with the allocation to basin. In the context how similar features are defined in OSM seems a wise conclusion. Good and solid proposal, thank you Brian ! --Bert Araali (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Solid work by Brian (as usual!) --Stevea (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --501ghost (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Looks good to me! --LeifRasmussen (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- I still like this proposal. Glassman (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. (man_made=dyke or man_made=embankment might be correct, depending on the context: a dyke (or levee) is higher than the land on both sides, while an embankment might be one-sided) --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Marc marc (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Horza (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mxdanger (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Phidauex (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Carnildo (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --B-unicycling (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --PeterPan99 (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --InsertUser (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mashin (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. (per my reasoning in the previous vote) Arlo James Barnes (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. It seems rather dubious to exclude salt ponds from being used with this scheme. I bet salt ponds are the very first thing that most mappers will associate with an "evaporation basin". While I acknowledge that there are good reasons to give them there dedicated tag they don't convince me and I'd have preferred a wording that explains the pros and cons instead of simply discouraging it. --Stefanct (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

read the talk page, imho "continue to exist" should be read as "this proposal doesn't change this tag" and "this proposal takes no position on this tag" would have been a better wording. Marc marc (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --BubbaJuice (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Something B (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --AnakinNN (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Ezekielf (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Tagging should have included salt ponds, but it's a minor topic Fanfouer (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lectrician1 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)