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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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