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

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:37 PM, François Lacombe wrote: >> If you're coming to Rome, be sure to visit the "park of aqueducts", or >> "park of the 7 aqueducts" ;-) >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53791283 > > I definetly have to come there :) > NYC city water

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

2018-02-28 13:04 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > If you're coming to Rome, be sure to visit the "park of aqueducts", or > "park of the 7 aqueducts" ;-) > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53791283 > I definetly have to come there :) NYC city water tunnel #3 in live

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

2018-02-28 11:07 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I would rephrase it as "ancient parts of Roman aqueducts > (tunnels/bridges/canals)". > Given problem is we intend to map landmarks with words referring to way > other things. > > Aqueduct should be a term only used on

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

Hi Martin, 2018-02-28 10:30 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > on a side note: there's the tag > > historic=aqueduct > > for the mentioned ancient Roman aqueducts. > I would rephrase it as "ancient parts of Roman aqueducts (tunnels/bridges/canals)". Given problem is we

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

2018-02-28 0:41 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > Hi all, > > 2018-02-21 17:25 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny : > >> I think you're right. The Aqua Marcia, Aqua Ano Vetus, Aqua Anio >> Novus, and Aqua Claudia were all known as 'aqueducts' and were

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

Hi all, 2018-02-21 17:25 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kenny : > I think you're right. The Aqua Marcia, Aqua Ano Vetus, Aqua Anio > Novus, and Aqua Claudia were all known as 'aqueducts' and were systems > that were tens of km, in canals where possible, but mostly in > underground

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

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:05 AM, François Lacombe wrote: > In the same time, systems like "Los Angeles Aqueduct" are called aqueduct > and are composed of canals, tunnels and pipelines. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct > > That's why I like the

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

Hi Janko, 2018-02-20 17:00 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > We need a value for man made waterways that aren't used for carrying water > away, but for bringing water somewhere. > This sounds to be the waterway=canal definition. Navigation, irrigation, spillway, hydropower are usage

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

pon, 19. velj 2018. u 19:18 François Lacombe napisao je: > > Are we talking about a new value like waterway=aqueduct ? > I would really like a new waterway value because the ones we have are too restricting. "River" and "stream" cover natural waterways, and man made

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

Hi all, 2018-02-19 16:36 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch : > My OED says that an aqueduct is “an artificial channel for the conveyance > of water from place to place; a conduit; esp. an elevated structure of > masonry for this purpose.” So from the first part of that definition an >

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

> On Feb 19, 2018, at 5:06 AM, John Sturdy wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Paul Allen > wrote: > In my part of the world, an artificial waterway used > for conveying water is almost always referred to as an

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

Hi 2018-02-15 3:47 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Are all of these these proposed waterway=pressurised in pipes? > No, there are 3 big categories : in pipeline, in tunnel, in caves. > > You can gather I find the proposal confusing... > > Talk of canals and .. they are not part of

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

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2018, at 22:44, marc marc wrote: > > a pressurized waterways can be a pipeline, a natural cavity in the rock > or an artificial cavity. for the pipeline there are tags, so we need them for waterways through cavities?

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

On 15-Feb-18 08:41 AM, François Lacombe wrote: 2018-02-14 22:20 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better as a property tag as Martin suggests. What do you mean with "dual tagged" ?

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

On 14-Feb-18 09:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no it doesn't change the underlying problem. which waterway=* to describe this section correctly? It's not a canal, it's not necessarily a pipeline. Le 14. 02. 18 à 22:20, Warin a écrit : >

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

2018-02-14 22:20 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better as a > property tag as Martin suggests. > What do you mean with "dual tagged" ? > In this way the pipeline tag can also use the property 'pressurised' .. > and

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

On 14-Feb-18 09:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe >: I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? I think it should be

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

2018-02-14 14:44 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > IMHO you'll have to look at these one by one. "waterway=pressurised" is > still in your proposal, so I think we are talking also about this. > I agree and only meant we need a meaningful value to put waterway=* on pipe

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

2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. > Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? > 2018-02-14 12:06 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > 2018-02-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Martin

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

Hi all, 2018-02-14 1:25 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > 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

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

2018-02-14 1:03 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I don't get the point about waterway=pressurised. > Is this that bad, or you just don't want ot use it? > I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no Cheers, Martin

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

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

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. The technical trick with these is that the

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

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi everybody, > > The hydro power waterway proposal has been updated to take care of several > useful comments made during the last vote. > > Here is a changelog : > - Moving from waterway=drain to

[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

Hi everybody, The hydro power waterway proposal has been updated to take care of several useful comments made during the last vote. Here is a changelog : - Moving from waterway=drain to waterway=canal since a drain is mainly intended to remove superfluous water. A canal carries water from A to B