[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways
fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Thu Feb 15 10:02:41 UTC 2018
2018-02-15 3:47 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
> Are all of these these proposed waterway=pressurised in pipes?
No, there are 3 big categories : in pipeline, in tunnel, in caves.
> You can gather I find the proposal confusing...
> Talk of canals and .. they are not part of this?
I know it's a bit technical, that's why I made charts to illustrate the
Canals are part of this : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
2018-02-15 9:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>for the pipeline there are tags, so we need them for waterways through
Yes, ideally the same than on pipelines.
> waterway=stream/river + tunnel=siphon for natural pressurized waterways
in a siphon. You could add pressurized=*, but I'd see this implied by the
> waterway=river tunnel=pipe pressurized=yes for man made pressurized
passages (maybe the pipe also already implies pressurized).
Related to this discussion : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
We should not mix free flow and pipe flow waterways, and
waterway=stream/river are currently used on open air free flow features.
Issue with tunnel=pipe is that it looks like merging tunnel and pipeline
which are set incompatible unless the pipeline is inside a proper tunnel.
I made this table to summarize how existing values and proposed pressurised
organize in waterway key
As to get a complete waterway topology, the table have to be completely
We can differentiate natural and man made pipe flow values, currently
pressurised is proposed for both.
All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging