[OSM-talk] MEP - pipelines

Chris Hill osm at raggedred.net
Sat Jan 3 17:22:17 UTC 2015

On 03/01/15 16:50, Rainer F├╝genstein wrote:
> in accordance to the mechanical edit policy, I'd like to open the
> discussion on this list:
> a recently approved proposal introduced new tags for pipelines and
> marker [1] and changed an established tag:
> type=* was changed to substance=*

The values may need changing, e.g. type=sewer become substance=sewage

> the main reason for this change was a (possible) conflict with type=*
> as used in relations. also, type=* was considered to be too generic to
> describe the medium flowing within pipelines.
> this requires a mechanical update of existing data:

No, just because a handful of wiki 'votes' does not mandate a mechanical 

> nodes: containing pipeline=marker
> nodes: containing pipeline=substation
>    type=* --> substance=*
> ways: for man_made=pipeline
> ways: containing pipeline=substation
>    type=* --> substance=*
> As of now, I'm only aware of the ITO pipeline map (rendering), that is
> affected by this change.

What about the maps I produce for my client? You're not likely to know 
about it as it is a private project. If you make a mechanical edit that 
breaks my render, should I send the bill for the changes to you rather 
than ask my client to pay? (This is not hypothetical I really do have a 
render using pipelines. I'm also using pipeline data to calculate 
approximations of distribution and aggregation).

> this affects data worldwide. I assume that this update will have to be
> executed several times in the near future, as mappers may continue to
> use type=* until they are aware of the new pipeline tagging scheme.
What? your amazing wiki page might be ignored by some mappers? How dare 

If you must have a mechanical edit (which I don't see as vital), why not 
add substance=* tag alongside the type=* tag? That way existing renders 
and other uses will not be broken. Mech edits that are presumably 
intended to improve the quality of OSM data can badly damage confidence 
in the data by breaking existing use.

Cheers, Chris
user: chillly

More information about the talk mailing list