[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 14 02:16:11 UTC 2018

Le 14. 02. 18 à 01:25, Warin a écrit :
> 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.

the same analogy exists for roads :
you can tag highway=* separately from tunnel=* or bridge=*
so why would you do anything else with waterway=* ?
When there is no pipe, I don't map a pipe :)
If I see the water flow, witch tag to map it ?

>>> 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.

some ?
what do you propose to be consistent that works for more than one case ?
with each of your changing schema, your merging between 
function<>container cause inconsistencies.
take the picture of the proposal and make a counter-proposal that:
- ensures continuity of the waterway (same way as ensuring continuity of 
the roads even when they are in a tunnel... if I don't care about 
tunnel/bridge/surface, I can get highway=* objets and have a network.
the same should be possible for water)
- avoids errors like pressure is synonymous with tunnel pipeline caving 
and material.
- work for the 3 usecase, not only the pipeline one.
don't hesitate to post your counter-proposal picture on the talk page.

>> 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?

you make up things I didn't say.
nobody never navigate inside a the water network of a power plant :)
but some still want to have a water network without gap.
I never said anything about rendering either.
I'm tagging for the data, to describe well what some of us see.
= how to structure water network information separately
from information on the equipment used.
we can describe the water network from the source to the ocean,
except for those parties whose proposal proposes to fill the gap.

> A pipeline carrying water is now to be re-tagged as a waterway?

nobody request it. nobody depreciate the proper use of a pipeline.
the proposal ALLOWS those who WISH to do so to ADD data to make a 
continuity in the water network (in the same way as one makes a 
continuity in the road network).
if you see a pipeline without knowing what it contains or its use,
you can continue tagging a pipeline, nobody is against it in the same 
way as if you see a bridge from the valley, you can encode it, someone 
else will add more information later.


More information about the Tagging mailing list