[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

Fran├žois Lacombe 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
term siphon
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180215/2518519f/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list