Hi Francois,
On 2015-10-11 13:28, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Colin > > Le 9 oct. 2015 7:26 PM, "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> a écrit : >> Are you just saying it is unlikely, or do you mean that it would no longer >> be called a pipeline if part of its distance is drilled through rock instead >> of being a steel pipe? > > I won't call a drilled rock section a "pipeline". It is not a PIPE, but it may be part of a PIPELINE (if you accept the analogy of a pipeline being like a route, chaining many segments together.) > "Penstock" indicates the function, not a means of construction. > And hat's precisely why penstocks shouldn't be restricted to pipelines in OSM > ? I would say, not restricted to PIPES. >> I think the sentence "Modern aqueducts may also use pipelines" might be >> better rephrased as "Modern aqueducts may carry the (water) in pipes instead >> of the traditional open channels." > I don't agree since Roman aqueducts weren't completely open but weren't using > pipelines too. > Pipelines are one solution out of many other. Make this diversity persistent > in OSM is a good thing IMHO. The word "may" means "is allowed to." Open or semi-open aqueducts are still allowed as well. So the definition of aqueduct is "a construction for guiding flowing water", which is what its latin origins intended. No part of that word suggests that they have to be open or pipes or whatever. > My point was to find a solution regarding the water flow and not exclusively > regarding pipelines. > > 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
