[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways
fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Tue Feb 13 14:26:07 UTC 2018
2018-02-12 17:12 GMT+01:00 Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:
> Does that help or make matters worse?
Thank you for your contribution.
Given problem is cluttering waterway=* key a bit more with additional
values may not be accepted.
According to comments, I should use established values and the only one
added is waterway=pressurised.
waterway=canal is currently used to map non navigable waterways and it's
the closest thing corresponding to carry useful water.
canal=* or tunnel=* are intended to give canal usage
I agree there are aqueducts, but it's a concept composed of canals, pipes,
tunnels depending of environment don't you ?
2018-02-12 19:14 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:
>There is another type of a combination of open waterway, underground
waterway, and pressurised waterway/pipeline:
>a siphon (see ). This is a frequent situation here in northern Italy.
They came in all sizes, and there are hundreds of them around here.
This is a great add, thank you :)
I would map this as waterway=pressurised + tunnel=transmission, if and ONLY
if intakes are always below the water level.
On your picture (http://www.acquerisorgive.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/
IMG_0121.jpg), I can barely see the top of the tunnel and air could get
inside, couldn't you ?
Then, waterway=canal + tunnel=transmission + location=underground would be
enough if intakes are above water level.
Do you have more precise pictures that would be added to examples sections ?
All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging