[Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 3 20:59:37 UTC 2019


having 2 key with the same meaning is not a good thing.
I'm in favor of deprecing service=irrigation in favor of 
usage=irrigation, more consistent with other usage=* values
used on other waterways.

Le 03.06.19 à 22:19, François Lacombe a écrit :
> Hi all
> 
> Regarding the particular situation of service vs usage keys, JOSM team 
> wonders if service may be moved to usage
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17770
> 
> Don't blame them on "deprecate" word, which should be understood as 
> "discouraged".
> Question is "Should we keep service in use for destination of water 
> leading in man made waterways?"
> 
> All the best
> 
> François
> 
> Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 22:41, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com 
> <mailto:fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>> a écrit :
> 
>     Hi
> 
>     I agree with aqueduct as a system composed of bridges, tunnels,
>     pipes and canal (not only a bridge crossing a valley).
> 
>     Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 16:10, Mateusz Konieczny
>     <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> a écrit :
> 
>         I think that in this case, with only
> 
>         usage=headrace
>         waterway=canal
> 
>         tags even a perfect renderer would have a trouble.
> 
> 
>     That's right
>     It misses a structure
>     Tunnel and bridge can eventually help respectively for underground
>     and overhead situations.
>     Another key or value have to be determined to describe overground
>     lining (and other possibilities)
> 
>     If the canal have a constant width, it can be added with width=*
>     referring to water width at its surface
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list