Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[marc marc]

Le 14. 02. 18 à 01:25, Warin a écrit :
> On 14-Feb-18 11:05 AM, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 14. 02. 18 à 00:51, Warin a écrit :
>>> OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".
>> a water flow is there -> waterway=* (the same logic as for highway=*)
>> we already map "hardware" for road (surface) for building
>> (building:material). did we need to delete those ?
> 
> No 'we' did not delete them .. but they are secondary tags.. 'we' map 
> the road/building first then things like colour, surface, hight, 
> elevation etc etc.
> The 'primary' thing 'we' tag is what is there ..
> When there is a pipe .. I map a pipe.
> I may not know what is inside the pipe.
> I may not know what the function of the pipe is.
> But I map the pipe.

the same analogy exists for roads :
you can tag highway=* separately from tunnel=* or bridge=*
so why would you do anything else with waterway=* ?
When there is no pipe, I don't map a pipe :)
If I see the water flow, witch tag to map it ?

>>> In the diagram
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
>>>  
>>>
>>> The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal,
>>> tunnel=yes could be replace by
>>> man_made=pipeline ..
>> 1) a tunnel is not a pipeline !
> 
> Some are. Some are constructed to be used to transport water.

some ?
what do you propose to be consistent that works for more than one case ?
with each of your changing schema, your merging between 
function<>container cause inconsistencies.
take the picture of the proposal and make a counter-proposal that:
- ensures continuity of the waterway (same way as ensuring continuity of 
the roads even when they are in a tunnel... if I don't care about 
tunnel/bridge/surface, I can get highway=* objets and have a network.
the same should be possible for water)
- avoids errors like pressure is synonymous with tunnel pipeline caving 
and material.
- work for the 3 usecase, not only the pipeline one.
don't hesitate to post your counter-proposal picture on the talk page.

>> 2) not having a waterway=* is bad beaucase it break the continuity of
>> the water network.
>> By analogy, when a trunk go into a tunnel,
>> we don't replace highway=trunk by tunnel=trunk
>> but we keep a continuity of highway=* network by having on tag
>> for "road network" and another tag for the tunnel it-self.
> 
> Tagging for navigation? Or water flow? Is this not a render issue?

you make up things I didn't say.
nobody never navigate inside a the water network of a power plant :)
but some still want to have a water network without gap.
I never said anything about rendering either.
I'm tagging for the data, to describe well what some of us see.
= how to structure water network information separately
from information on the equipment used.
we can describe the water network from the source to the ocean,
except for those parties whose proposal proposes to fill the gap.

> A pipeline carrying water is now to be re-tagged as a waterway?

nobody request it. nobody depreciate the proper use of a pipeline.
the proposal ALLOWS those who WISH to do so to ADD data to make a 
continuity in the water network (in the same way as one makes a 
continuity in the road network).
if you see a pipeline without knowing what it contains or its use,
you can continue tagging a pipeline, nobody is against it in the same 
way as if you see a bridge from the valley, you can encode it, someone 
else will add more information later.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[Warin]

On 14-Feb-18 11:05 AM, marc marc wrote:

Le 14. 02. 18 à 00:51, Warin a écrit :

OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".

a water flow is there -> waterway=* (the same logic as for highway=*)
we already map "hardware" for road (surface) for building
(building:material). did we need to delete those ?


No 'we' did not delete them .. but they are secondary tags.. 'we' map the 
road/building first then things like colour, surface, hight, elevation etc etc.
The 'primary' thing 'we' tag is what is there ..
When there is a pipe .. I map a pipe.
I may not know what is inside the pipe.
I may not know what the function of the pipe is.
But I map the pipe.





In the diagram
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal,
tunnel=yes could be replace by
man_made=pipeline ..

1) a tunnel is not a pipeline !


Some are. Some are constructed to be used to transport water.


2) not having a waterway=* is bad beaucase it break the continuity of
the water network.
By analogy, when a trunk go into a tunnel,
we don't replace highway=trunk by tunnel=trunk
but we keep a continuity of highway=* network by having on tag
for "road network" and another tag for the tunnel it-self.


Tagging for navigation? Or water flow? Is this not a render issue?

A pipeline carrying water is now to be re-tagged as a waterway? Because the 
'waterway network' cannot tolerate it?

I think man_made=pipeline is a valid truthful tag. I have used it for hydro 
power water supply. And will continue to do so.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[marc marc]

Le 14. 02. 18 à 00:51, Warin a écrit :
> OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".

a water flow is there -> waterway=* (the same logic as for highway=*)
we already map "hardware" for road (surface) for building 
(building:material). did we need to delete those ?

> In the diagram
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
>  
> The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal, 
> tunnel=yes could be replace by
> man_made=pipeline .. 
1) a tunnel is not a pipeline !
2) not having a waterway=* is bad beaucase it break the continuity of 
the water network.
By analogy, when a trunk go into a tunnel,
we don't replace highway=trunk by tunnel=trunk
but we keep a continuity of highway=* network by having on tag
for "road network" and another tag for the tunnel it-self.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

 Hi,

2018-02-14 0:51 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> In the diagram
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_
> flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
>
> The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal,
> tunnel=yes could be replace by
> man_made=pipeline .. as there should be nothing limiting what a pipe is
> made out of.


A tunnel doesn't sound like a proper pipeline to me

Especially because a pipeline can be hosted in a tunnel.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_pipeline_in_tunnel.png


2018-02-14 0:51 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".
>

Then it isn't clear to me why we use to tag an underground road with
highway=primary + tunnel=yes
We actually do have well established tagging which separate content from
containers.

I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised.
Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it?

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[Warin]

On 14-Feb-18 10:22 AM, marc marc wrote:

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:57, Warin a écrit :

On 14-Feb-18 09:14 AM, marc marc wrote:

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :

the only one added is waterway=pressurised.

why not pipeline for this?

maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)

Umm? A siphon is made from a pipeline

did you read the proposal ?
look at the natural part of the picture
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
it's not a man_made=pipeline
I have explored several siphons in my life,
but I have never done caving in a pipeline :)


Arr


and it's a good thing to have a continuity "of water" with waterway=*

But pipelines can and do contain water .. So it would be a 'good thing'
to map what is there .. a pipeline.

have 2 separate tags for "use" and for the "hardware" is much more
structured.
We already do this for many other objects e. g. highway <> surface:
you have a continuity of highway=* tag even if the surface of the roads
changes and in case of tunnels or bridges.
this is exactly what the proposal wants to do: a continuity of the
waterway=* tags even if the materials/man_made/usage/tunnel change.
With this clear structure, you can use water flow datas separately from
material datas.


Oh. I am thinking only of man made structures (pipes), along with some others.

OSM unfortunately 'maps what is there' .. not "hardware"/"use".

The caves I would map as 'landform=*'. (Not 'natural=*' as some of these could 
be man made caves, and how would I tell not being a cave expert?)

And OSM may not (yet) map what is in a cave ... water in this case. And it 
would need some elevation tags to document what is going on.


In the diagram
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png

The upper ones may well be man made - so the tags waterway=canal, tunnel=yes 
could be replace by
man_made=pipeline .. as there should be nothing limiting what a pipe is made 
out of.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[marc marc]

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:57, Warin a écrit :
> On 14-Feb-18 09:14 AM, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :
 the only one added is waterway=pressurised.
>>> why not pipeline for this?
>> maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)
> 
> Umm? A siphon is made from a pipeline

did you read the proposal ?
look at the natural part of the picture
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/e/e6/Waterway_flows.png/500px-Waterway_flows.png
it's not a man_made=pipeline
I have explored several siphons in my life,
but I have never done caving in a pipeline :)

>> and it's a good thing to have a continuity "of water" with waterway=*
> But pipelines can and do contain water .. So it would be a 'good thing' 
> to map what is there .. a pipeline.

have 2 separate tags for "use" and for the "hardware" is much more 
structured.
We already do this for many other objects e. g. highway <> surface:
you have a continuity of highway=* tag even if the surface of the roads 
changes and in case of tunnels or bridges.
this is exactly what the proposal wants to do: a continuity of the 
waterway=* tags even if the materials/man_made/usage/tunnel change.
With this clear structure, you can use water flow datas separately from 
material datas.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[Warin]

On 14-Feb-18 09:14 AM, marc marc wrote:

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :

the only one added is waterway=pressurised.

why not pipeline for this?

maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)


Umm? A siphon is made from a pipeline .. so it is a 'pipeline'.


and it's a good thing to have a continuity "of water" with waterway=*


But pipelines can and do contain water .. So it would be a 'good thing' to map 
what is there .. a pipeline.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/02/2018 22:14, marc marc wrote:

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :

the only one added is waterway=pressurised.

why not pipeline for this?

maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)


By what definition?  The pipeline that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203739284 would be considered by just 
about any local looking at it as a pipeline and that pipeline is 
composed of a series of syphons (that way itself uses one to get over 
the canal).  Maybe here's some pre-existing OSM usage that suggests that 
a "pipeline is not a pipeline" or a "syphon is not a syphon", but 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies 
doesn't seem to explain it.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[marc marc]

Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit :
>> the only one added is waterway=pressurised.
> 
> why not pipeline for this?

maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :)
and it's a good thing to have a continuity "of water" with waterway=*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[Richard]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:26:07PM +0100, François Lacombe wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> 2018-02-12 17:12 GMT+01:00 Paul Allen :
> 
> > Does that help or make matters worse?
> >
> 
> Thank you for your contribution.
> 
> Given problem is cluttering waterway=* key a bit more with additional
> values may not be accepted.
> According to comments, I should use established values and the only one
> added is waterway=pressurised.

why not pipeline for this?? And pressurised should be an attribute to
canal and/or pipeline, not a separate value.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

Hi Paul,

2018-02-12 17:12 GMT+01:00 Paul Allen :

> Does that help or make matters worse?
>

Thank you for your contribution.

Given problem is cluttering waterway=* key a bit more with additional
values may not be accepted.
According to comments, I should use established values and the only one
added is waterway=pressurised.

waterway=canal is currently used to map non navigable waterways and it's
the closest thing corresponding to carry useful water.
canal=* or tunnel=* are intended to give canal usage

I agree there are aqueducts, but it's a concept composed of canals, pipes,
tunnels depending of environment don't you ?

2018-02-12 19:14 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>There is another type of a combination of open waterway, underground
waterway, and pressurised waterway/pipeline:
>a siphon (see [1]). This is a frequent situation here in northern Italy.
They came in all sizes, and there are hundreds of them around here.

This is a great add, thank you :)

I would map this as waterway=pressurised + tunnel=transmission, if and ONLY
if intakes are always below the water level.
On your picture (http://www.acquerisorgive.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/
IMG_0121.jpg), I can barely see the top of the tunnel and air could get
inside, couldn't you ?
Then, waterway=canal + tunnel=transmission + location=underground would be
enough if intakes are above water level.

Do you have more precise pictures that would be added to examples sections ?

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging