[Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

John Willis johnw at mac.com
Wed Jun 5 20:55:00 UTC 2019

I believe all are drains. None have width tagged, as I just researched it for the pictures. Tagging width from imagery is difficult, as even a small amount of weeds/grass can obscure their true size. The resivoir box just happens to be our residential area's garbage transfer point (you can see the cage in the photo), so I see the area often. Adding width to the 100KM I have tagged is very difficult. 

There is a canal + irrigation "aqueduct" nearby. It brings water 10KM to a small holding lake near the newer drain pictures. The dam feeds an existing stream that is the headwaters for a 30KM river, providing irrigation to farmers. and these drains & small resivoir are the first to pull water from that stream (and return to it 1.5km later). 

The older drains are in an urban system farther away, mostly handling rain runoff - but eventually supply water to farmers downstream outside of town. 

The canals (aqueducts) are rare very easy to spot, as they are constructed quite differently. The rest of the drain-ditch-stream-river system is dual-purpose irrigation+storm water management. A separate sewer system (or cistern tanks) handles household wastewater. 


> On Jun 4, 2019, at 5:59 AM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list