[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Feb 14 13:44:45 UTC 2018
2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>:
> I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised.
> Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it?
2018-02-14 12:06 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>:
> 2018-02-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> >I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no
> Given problem isn't regarding pressurised in particular but to add
> meaningful waterway values on every feature carrying large amount of water.
IMHO you'll have to look at these one by one. "waterway=pressurised" is
still in your proposal, so I think we are talking also about this.
not sure if waterway=pipe makes sense? From what I read, "culvert" is
describing that a waterway is flowing under something else, so it is not
generally applicable for waterways in tubes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging