[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Feb 14 00:25:53 UTC 2018

On 14-Feb-18 11:05 AM, marc marc wrote:
> Le 14. 02. 18 à 00:51, Warin a écrit :
>> OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".
> a water flow is there -> waterway=* (the same logic as for highway=*)
> we already map "hardware" for road (surface) for building
> (building:material). did we need to delete those ?

No 'we' did not delete them .. but they are secondary tags.. 'we' map the road/building first then things like colour, surface, hight, elevation etc etc.
The 'primary' thing 'we' tag is what is there ..
When there is a pipe .. I map a pipe.
I may not know what is inside the pipe.
I may not know what the function of the pipe is.
But I map the pipe.

>> In the diagram
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
>> The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal,
>> tunnel=yes could be replace by
>> man_made=pipeline ..
> 1) a tunnel is not a pipeline !

Some are. Some are constructed to be used to transport water.

> 2) not having a waterway=* is bad beaucase it break the continuity of
> the water network.
> By analogy, when a trunk go into a tunnel,
> we don't replace highway=trunk by tunnel=trunk
> but we keep a continuity of highway=* network by having on tag
> for "road network" and another tag for the tunnel it-self.

Tagging for navigation? Or water flow? Is this not a render issue?

A pipeline carrying water is now to be re-tagged as a waterway? Because the 'waterway network' cannot tolerate it?

I think man_made=pipeline is a valid truthful tag. I have used it for hydro power water supply. And will continue to do so.

More information about the Tagging mailing list