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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 tunnel #3 in live operation would also be a great thing to
> see as Kevin reminds me its last stage recent completing

There isn't much to see with Tunnel Three - everything's
deep underground and closed to the public.

The hills above the reservoirs, however, offer great hiking opportunities.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14738413825 is the view
from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357546546 looking out
over https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6281964 - and
I see I have some repair of broken relations to do when I get
home. :)

And we're getting far from the topic, so I'll be quiet again.

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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 operation would also be a great thing to
see as Kevin reminds me its last stage recent completing

Mapping encourages tourism which encourages mapping :)

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 relations involving different
> physical man made structure like pipeline, tunnels or bridges.
> waterway=aqueduct would woth it on type=waterway relations
>
> This : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Pont_Du_Gard.JPG
> is only *part of* an aqueduct, not the aqueduct itself.
>



yes, it is used for parts of aqueducts (most ancient aqueducts aren't
complete any more), in some cases there might even be 2 aqueducts in the
same piece of relic, e.g. here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_Anio_Novus
The Anio Novus was running the last 13 kilometers on top of the structure
of Acqua Claudia.

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

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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 intend to map landmarks with words referring to way
other things.

Aqueduct should be a term only used on relations involving different
physical man made structure like pipeline, tunnels or bridges.
waterway=aqueduct would woth it on type=waterway relations

This : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Pont_Du_Gard.JPG
is only *part of* an aqueduct, not the aqueduct itself.

All the best

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 systems
>> that were tens of km, in canals where possible, but mostly in
>> underground conduits. There were pressurized syphons for valley
>> crossings. Only the terminal portions of the aqueducts, as they
>> approached the City, or crossings of deep valleys, were on arcades -
>> but these make the tourist pictures, so people get the incorrect
>> impression that 'aqueduct' is synonymous with 'arcade'.
>>
>
> This sounds to be an enough justification to don't use the aqueduct term,
> thank you Kevin
>


on a side note: there's the tag

historic=aqueduct

for the mentioned ancient Roman aqueducts.

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

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

[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 systems
> that were tens of km, in canals where possible, but mostly in
> underground conduits. There were pressurized syphons for valley
> crossings. Only the terminal portions of the aqueducts, as they
> approached the City, or crossings of deep valleys, were on arcades -
> but these make the tourist pictures, so people get the incorrect
> impression that 'aqueduct' is synonymous with 'arcade'.
>

This sounds to be an enough justification to don't use the aqueduct term,
thank you Kevin

The proposal is for now in its final version, with various key points :
- waterway=pressurised to make a continuation of rivers in pipelines,
tunnels and natural caves
- tunnel=flooded to make a distinguish between human accessible and flooded
tunnels in operation
- A more wide tagging with usage=* for tunnels, canals, bridges as to take
advantage of pipelines/railway tagging
- No more cluttering of waterway key with spillways (moved to usage=*)
according to comments

The table in this chapter summarize the need of a waterway value, among
other schematics and pictures
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Pressurised_waterway_.28pipe_flow_only.29

No better terminology than pressurised has risen so far
Aqueduct is not properly a building but a system, Canal have to stay
dedicated to free flow streams outside and inside tunnels
River, Stream can't be used in man made structures since they are currently
dedicated to natural flows.

Without further comments a second vote can begin shortly, stay tuned :)

All the best

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 definition of Aqueduct like a system and not like a
> precise building.
>
> Am I wrong ?

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 conduits. There were pressurized syphons for valley
crossings. Only the terminal portions of the aqueducts, as they
approached the City, or crossings of deep valleys, were on arcades -
but these make the tourist pictures, so people get the incorrect
impression that 'aqueduct' is synonymous with 'arcade'.

The arcades were used as the water approached Rome because the whole
system was gravity fed, and having the water up on a high arcade was
the way to get decent water pressure at the tap.

New York City's system runs on a similar plan, but with pressurized
tunnels. The system is entirely gravity driven from its sources in the
Catskill Mountains to the tap. The upper sources of the system are as
far away as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135512500 (for the
Catskill Aqueduct) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134694145
(the tunnel doesn't appear to be mapped) for the Delaware Aqueduct.

Using 'canal' for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135512500 - when
it's a pressurized syphon - is suboptimal, but is the 'least wrong'
thing in current tagging.

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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 and may go in
usage=* key.

Look at this table :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Pressurised_waterway_.28pipe_flow_only.29
Canal can go open air, in culvert and free flow tunnel


> Waterway=aqueduct looks ok to me, although, in the Wikipedia page for
> aqueduct, bringing water to hydro power stations is never mentioned. But I
> think it's ok to use that value for that use.
>

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 definition of Aqueduct like a system and not like a
precise building.

Am I wrong ?


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

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

[Janko Mihelić]

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
values are:

1. canal - big enough to be used by boats
2. drain - for carrying superfluous water away, concrete walls
3. ditch - the same as drain but without concrete

We need a value for man made waterways that aren't used for carrying water
away, but for bringing water somewhere.

Waterway=aqueduct looks ok to me, although, in the Wikipedia page for
aqueduct, bringing water to hydro power stations is never mentioned. But I
think it's ok to use that value for that use.

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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
> aqueduct need not be an elevated structure.
>
> Based on this, my interpretation is that a leat is probably a smaller more
> local thing providing water to one or a small number houses or mills. While
> aqueduct is a more general term for  the works used to transport water from
> place to place.
>

Thank you for clear definition.

Then, I'm wondering what would be the difference between a canal and an
aqueduct?
Can the aqueduct be open air or only established in closed space ?

Are we talking about a new value like waterway=aqueduct ?


All the best

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

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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 aqueduct
> 
> I think of an aqueduct as being a bridge conveying water above ground level; 
> a channel cut into the ground for conveying water is a "leat”.
> 

The large artificial channels carrying water to Southern California from the 
Colorado River, eastern Sierra Mountains and Northern California are generally 
called “aqueducts”. For much of their length they are in open channels set into 
the ground.

As an American English speaker, I’ve never heard of “leat”. And I don’t see 
“leat" in my old American Heritage Dictionary, so it is apparently not used at 
all in the US. So I pulled out my microprint Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to 
figure out what you are referring to.

My OED says that a “leat” is “an open watercourse to conduct water for 
household purposes, mills, mining works, etc."

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 aqueduct need not 
be an elevated structure.

Based on this, my interpretation is that a leat is probably a smaller more 
local thing providing water to one or a small number houses or mills. While 
aqueduct is a more general term for  the works used to transport water from 
place to place.

Tod


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

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

[John Sturdy]

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 aqueduct
>

I think of an aqueduct as being a bridge conveying water above ground
level; a channel cut into the ground for conveying water is a "leat".

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

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

[François Lacombe]

Hi

2018-02-15 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 this?
>

I know it's a bit technical, that's why I made charts to illustrate the
document
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_manmade_structures.png

Canals are part of this : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Overground_canals

2018-02-15 9:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>for the pipeline there are tags, so we need them for waterways through
cavities?
Yes, ideally the same than on pipelines.

> waterway=stream/river + tunnel=siphon for natural pressurized waterways
in a siphon. You could add pressurized=*, but I'd see this implied by the
term siphon
> waterway=river tunnel=pipe pressurized=yes for man made pressurized
passages  (maybe the pipe also already implies pressurized).
Related to this discussion : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_
supplies#Bad_use_of_waterway_key
We should not mix free flow and pipe flow waterways, and
waterway=stream/river are currently used on open air free flow features.

Issue with tunnel=pipe is that it looks like merging tunnel and pipeline
which are set incompatible unless the pipeline is inside a proper tunnel.

I made this table to summarize how existing values and proposed pressurised
organize in waterway key
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Pressurised_waterway_.28pipe_flow_only.29
As to get a complete waterway topology, the table have to be completely
filled.

We can differentiate natural and man made pipe flow values, currently
pressurised is proposed for both.

All the best

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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?

waterway=stream/river + tunnel=siphon for natural pressurized
waterways in a siphon. You could add pressurized=*, but I'd see this
implied by the term siphon

waterway=river tunnel=pipe pressurized=yes for man made pressurized
passages  (maybe the pipe also already implies pressurized).

Cheers,
Martin

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

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

[Warin]

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" ?
Having two main tags... when it is  pipe and tagged man_made=pipeline 
the suggestion/proposal is to add an additional main tag waterway=*


Getting tired of searching for the proposal .. here is a link .. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies


In this way the pipeline tag can also use the property
'pressurised' .. and that property could be expanded to include
numbers.


The tag pressure=* is here for that, the value can be given in bar
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:pressure

This is pretty easy to get this value for a penstock : pressure = 
(elev up - elev down) / 10 in bar


Are all of these these proposed waterway=pressurised in pipes?

You can gather I find the proposal confusing...

Talk of canals  and .. they are not part of this?


If these are all pipes .. then waterway=pipe would be a good 
description, use pressure=* as a tag for the pressure.


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

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

[marc marc]

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 :
> If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better  
> as a property tag as Martin suggests.

and when it's not the case ?
it's not dual tagged, it's one tag for the flow of water and another tag 
to descript the material that holds water.
a pressurized waterways can be a pipeline, a natural cavity in the rock 
or an artificial cavity.
we can use some man_made value to describe the material.
so just waterway=yes ? that's a poor value

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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 that property could be expanded to include numbers.
>

The tag pressure=* is here for that, the value can be given in bar
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:pressure

This is pretty easy to get this value for a penstock : pressure = (elev up
- elev down) / 10 in bar

All the best

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 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 a property like pressurised=yes/no


If this is dual tagged with man_made=pipeline then it would be better as 
a property tag as Martin suggests.
In this way the pipeline tag can also use the property 'pressurised' .. 
and that property could be expanded to include numbers.



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

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

[François Lacombe]

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
flow water ways.
Looking one by one is already done on this chart:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_manmade_structures.png


> not sure if waterway=pipe makes sense? From what I read, "culvert" is
> describing that a waterway is flowing under something else, so it is not
> generally applicable for waterways in tubes.
>

Both pipe and culvert aren't so good since it mix content and containers.
Not all pressurised waterways are in pipe nor culvert.

At least waterway=closed_space but it has less meaning than
waterway=pressurised.

According to this logic (split content from containers), waterway=canal
should be replaced with waterway=river + canal=* and waterway=drain
replaced by waterway=stream + canal=drain + intermittent=yes
But it's out of scope of my proposal and it can't be done without massive
re-tagging on existing features.
Then I go on with waterway=canal for man made diverted water ways.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 Koppenhoefer :
> >I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no
>
> Given problem isn't regarding pressurised in particular but to add
> meaningful waterway values on every feature carrying large amount of water.
>



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.
not sure if waterway=pipe makes sense? From what I read, "culvert" is
describing that a waterway is flowing under something else, so it is not
generally applicable for waterways in tubes.

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

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

[François Lacombe]

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 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 ..
>

Primary/secondary depends on who uses the tags, not on the tags themselves.
Your primary tags may be my own secondaries.
The proposal doesn't set some tags as primary and others as secondary, we
just try to associate concepts.

waterway isn't more important than man_made=pipeline or tunnel, it's just
two separate things on the same geometry.


> When there is a pipe .. I map a pipe.
>

When it's a tunnel, I map a tunnel.
This is more likely called a tunnel than a pipeline don't you ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_drain_outlet.jpg


> 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.


Question asked during RFC and voting isn't to know if you're able to know
everything but if you understand the taggind and find it consistent.
If you're not knowledgable about part of the mapping, someone else will
complete and that's a collective success.


> 1) a tunnel is not a pipeline !
>
>
> Some are. Some are constructed to be used to transport water.
>

First of all, pipeline are designed for pipe flow regime with a positive
static pressure (I don't mean all pipe flow regime waterways are pipeline).
Every tunnel carrying water with air inside can't be called a pipeline.
On my diagram, water goes down the tunnel in free flowing, then it's 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.
>>
>
> Tagging for navigation? Or water flow? Is this not a render issue?
>

Tagging for both, not for render.


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

If it's an actual pipeline regarding what was mentionned above,
man_made=pipeline stays and we just add waterway on it
If not, waterway network is inded incomplete, just like if we don't add
highway=* key on a tunnel because tunnel suggest there is a road inside.


> 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.


Yes it does, I don't mean to replace it.
I just propose to add waterway=* values because it's as truthful than
container (pipeline or tunnel or whatever)

2018-02-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>I think it should be a property like pressurised=yes/no

Given problem isn't regarding pressurised in particular but to add
meaningful waterway values on every feature carrying large amount of water.


All the best

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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
___
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 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

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

[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.
The technical trick with these is that the lower part of the siphon has
reduced cross section, and thus is pressurized, to increase the water speed
to flush out any deposits or avoid them in the first place .
This is a nice example [2]. Location on the map: [3]

[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont-siphon
[2] http://www.acquerisorgive.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_0121.jpg
[3] https://osm.org/go/0ICdUgNrl-?m=&node=1549226607


On 12 February 2018 at 16:44, 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 waterway=canal since a drain is mainly
> intended to remove superfluous water. A canal carries water from A to B for
> a particular usage. It can be overground and underground with tunnel=*, as
> not to break existing underground ways with waterway=canal on them
> - Introducing mill race concept thanks to Janko Mihelic (mill race = head
> race + mill + tail race)
> - Introducing tunnel=headrace, tailrace and canal=headrace, tailrace,
> spillway
> - Moving from waterway=spillway to waterway=canal + canal=spillway
>
> waterway=pressurised stays in the document currently, I still believe this
> value is useful and bring consistency for hydrology mapping, as a
> continuation of rivers/stream inside tunnels and pipelines.
>
> I've updated pictures :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_flows.png
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_manmade_structures.png
>
> The second one shows how various are waterways and why a waterway=* value
> is useful to get all of them without leak.
>
> Depending on comments, voting may restart shortly.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 waterway=canal since a drain is mainly
> intended to remove superfluous water. A canal carries water from A to B for
> a particular usage. It can be overground and underground with tunnel=*, as
> not to break existing underground ways with waterway=canal on them
>

I'm coming late to this discussion, so this has probably already been
discussed to death, but...

A canal is an artificial waterway which may be used for water conveyance of
for transportation.  In my part of
the world "canal" almost always means a navigable channel (strictly called
a navigation canal or just a
navigation) and doesn't convey water in meaningful amounts.  In my part of
the world, an artificial waterway used
for conveying water is almost always referred to as an aqueduct.  And yes,
occasionally an artificial waterway may
be constructed for both purposes, but it's not common.

Does that help or make matters worse?

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

[Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

[François Lacombe]

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 for
a particular usage. It can be overground and underground with tunnel=*, as
not to break existing underground ways with waterway=canal on them
- Introducing mill race concept thanks to Janko Mihelic (mill race = head
race + mill + tail race)
- Introducing tunnel=headrace, tailrace and canal=headrace, tailrace,
spillway
- Moving from waterway=spillway to waterway=canal + canal=spillway

waterway=pressurised stays in the document currently, I still believe this
value is useful and bring consistency for hydrology mapping, as a
continuation of rivers/stream inside tunnels and pipelines.

I've updated pictures :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_flows.png
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Waterway_manmade_structures.png

The second one shows how various are waterways and why a waterway=* value
is useful to get all of them without leak.

Depending on comments, voting may restart shortly.

All the best

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