[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Feb 13 23:51:23 UTC 2018
On 14-Feb-18 10:22 AM, marc marc wrote:
> Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:57, Warin a écrit :
>> On 14-Feb-18 09:14 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>> Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :
>>>>> the only one added is waterway=pressurised.
>>>> why not pipeline for this?
>>> maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)
>> Umm? A siphon is made from a pipeline
> did you read the proposal ?
> look at the natural part of the picture
> it's not a man_made=pipeline
> I have explored several siphons in my life,
> but I have never done caving in a pipeline :)
>>> and it's a good thing to have a continuity "of water" with waterway=*
>> But pipelines can and do contain water .. So it would be a 'good thing'
>> to map what is there .. a pipeline.
> have 2 separate tags for "use" and for the "hardware" is much more
> We already do this for many other objects e. g. highway <> surface:
> you have a continuity of highway=* tag even if the surface of the roads
> changes and in case of tunnels or bridges.
> this is exactly what the proposal wants to do: a continuity of the
> waterway=* tags even if the materials/man_made/usage/tunnel change.
> With this clear structure, you can use water flow datas separately from
> material datas.
Oh. I am thinking only of man made structures (pipes), along with some others.
OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".
The caves I would map as 'landform=*'. (Not 'natural=*' as some of these could be man made caves, and how would I tell not being a cave expert?)
And OSM may not (yet) map what is in a cave ... water in this case. And it would need some elevation tags to document what is going on.
In the diagram
The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal, tunnel=yes could be replace by
man_made=pipeline .. as there should be nothing limiting what a pipe is made out of.
More information about the Tagging