[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Process tanks.

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sat Mar 27 16:13:42 UTC 2021

I don't see any added value for OSM to make a new top-level value for 
process tanks.

As an engineer, I can say that any process tank, depending on the stage 
in the process, is a storage tank. Even if you would take into 
consideration, that due to what appliances it has or how it is build, 
doesn't give you a clue of whether it is used as a process tank or just 
a storage tank.
Many get disused for, primarily processing, others don't. Especially in 
water sewage faculties it is often difficult, even for me as an 
engineer, if it is still in use as a process tank, intended to be a 
process tank (because some storage tanks we just add f.i. an aerator and 
it becomes a process tank ?).  Now you expect that this tag is going to 
solve this problem, an issue where even experts disagree many times.
A tank is just a tank, add some attributes to it if you are sure and 
have seen proven that it is used for more then just storage, then add 
attributes to it like in a process=* tag.  Essentially nothing is wrong 
to keep it under other top level tags, being it water=reservoir, basin 
or pond or man_made=storage_tank.  They all can become a process tank 
somewhere in the processing of the fluid, they all are just storage 
tanks in some stage of the processing. Keep it simple.


Bert Araali

On 27/03/2021 17:46, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> For the 3 types of process tanks described in the proposal 
> (clarifiers, aeration tanks, and oxidation ditches), they are usually 
> open on top and have clearly distinguishing features that make them 
> easy to identify on imagery, once you know what you're looking for.  
> The annotated photos in the proposal were developed specifically to 
> provide that helpful guidance to mappers.
> For some other (as yet unspecified) type of process tank which may 
> exist, the answer is no different than for any other feature on the 
> map which is hard for an armchair mapper to identify: use the 
> surrounding context, research the facility, and make an educated 
> guess.  Or, a mapper can simply say "I don't know what this" and leave 
> it unmapped until someone with more knowledge comes around later.
> In some cases, this information is available in public sources.  
> For example, in The Netherlands (where my co-author is from, and where 
> water infrastructure is a pretty big deal), there is a public GIS 
> source that has data on process tanks at water treatment facilities.  
> The fact that these features might be hard to identify in some cases 
> or in some places, should not preclude more specific and accurate 
> tagging in places where the information is known and/or readily 
> available, or where these features *are* easily identifiable.
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 8:54 AM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com 
> <mailto:voschix at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     I see a major problem with this approach to specializing
>     high-level tags.
>     When a non-expert mapper like me sees a tank, say on a Mapillary
>     image and in a satellite image, what do I do with it? I see a tank
>     that contains some liquid, but I do not know whether its scope is
>     storage or processing. What do I do? And what about about the
>     400k+ storage tanks in the database some which in reality are
>     processing tanks.
>     On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, 22:02 Brian M. Sperlongano,
>     <zelonewolf at gmail.com <mailto:zelonewolf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         Hello,
>         A request for comment is now open for the proposal "Process
>         tanks".  This proposes the new tag man_made=process_tank to
>         tag tanks used for processing, just like we have
>         man_made=storage_tank for tanks used for storage.  In
>         addition, 3 sub-tags are proposed for specific, identifiable
>         process tanks used in water treatment facilities.  This is the
>         third proposal in a series of proposals working to improve the
>         tagging scheme for water features.
>         Many thanks to those who had expertise in this area and
>         assisted in the drafting of this proposal.
>         The proposal can be found here:
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Process_tanks
>         <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Process_tanks>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Tagging mailing list
>         Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210327/8c3fb6fd/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list