Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 09.10.2015 23:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> Contribute something useful, or get a life.
> 
> Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the
> future, or you will be removed from this list.

What insult? Do you mean me or him? He offended me by writing: "You dont get
it dont you?" - indicating that I am stupid.

Anyway, I don't see a reason why you interfere in this quarrel. It was
already over. Now you are firing it up again. As a moderator, you should
rather calm people down than inflame. And you should use personal messages
instead of public accusation - which always makes someone lose face.

Consider that neither he nor me are native English speakers. We use phrases
according to our dictionaries. I cautiously check whether phrases like "get
a life" may be insulting. I wouldn't use an insult intentionally. But
dictionaries may contain errors.

For the same reason, I think that Nikita (Xxxzme) should not have been
banned from this list. His alleged "strong language" was mainly due to a
lack of language skills. It is a pity that most russians don't participate
in international discussions. With their limited knowledge of the English
language, most of them don't even try. Those who do, get banned. This is
concerning. Deprived of international communication, they make up their own
tagging schemes, and OSM becomes increasingly balkanized.

So when you moderate a group, keep in mind that sometimes less is more.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 09.10.2015 23:42, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal
>>> tags.
>>>
>>> Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a
>>> bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden,
>>> and cannot be authorised (whereas it can be authorised on other rights of
>>> way). Then we have "restricted byways". And "byways open to all traffic".
>>> And "unclassified county roads". And so on.
>> Sounds more like a road type issue than an access tags issue.
> 
> It's not a road type issue.  It's not especially uncommon to have a "legal
> right of access" that legally allows vehicles that physically won't fit.

This discussion is about access tags, hence legal right of access. In this
context, physical fit does not matter.

>>> So we use the standard OSM broad-brush duck tagging (highway=track,
>>> highway=footway, highway=cycleway etc.) and add a UK-specific value to
>>> record the legal status of the path (designation=public_bridleway,
>>> designation=restricted_byway, designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic etc.).
>>> That way, it's easy to map, easy to parse in outline, possible to parse in
>>> detail, and doesn't impose a burden on the 95% of non-UK mappers or the 99%
>>> of data consumers who don't care.
>> However, the data consumers who do care have a hard time.
> 
> I do care (I create maps that incorporate these rights of way), and don't
> have a hard time.

Are you UK-based by any chance? Of course everyone incorporates the tags
used by the own community.

How do you handle designation=Državna_cesta?

> "creating a proprietary tag" is effectively exactly what you're proposing
> (the first line of the first message in this thread was "I intend to write a
> proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name.").

This tag will not be proprietary. It will have a clearly defined meaning, it
will be documented in the usal wiki pages, and everyone all over the world
is free to use it.

> You're entirely within your rights to use a new "access" value, and everyone
> else (router developers included) is entirely within their rights (and very
> likely) to ignore it.

Application developers in countries where such roads exist will certainly
support the tag right from the start, and others will follow when usage
numbers increase.

Anyway, I don't care whether the tag is supported. I don't do "mapping for
routers". If they want to use it, that's fine. If they ignore it, that's
fine too. Nobody is forced to use their software.

> This does a worse job of communicating the access
> rights to the intended audience than "access=destination with some sort of
> caveat" would.

A proposal (with certainly plenty of discussion) and the subsequent
documentation at key:access will be sufficient communication. We don't need
to visit every developer on Earth personally for every new tag.

> There are routers out there that don't understand that bicycle access on
> trunk roads is country dependant, or that it might be possible to route
> _through_ gates on tracks; do you really think that they'll cope well with
> an access value that they've never heard of?

Yes, because the new value will neither be country-dependent (as bicycle on
trunk) nor lockable (as a gate).

I reckon that most applications will treat the new tag as a synonym for
access=yes or no, just as they do for
access=destination/delivery/agricultural/etc. But applications will
elaborate over the years, and we don't want to remap all data when
applications happen to be ready.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> Contribute something useful, or get a life.

Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the
future, or you will be removed from this list.

Thank you.

Richard
tagging@ list admin



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/new-access-value-tp5856193p5856674.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 08.10.2015 12:16, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
(...a lot. I try to narrow it down to the critical passages.)

> sometimes the signs restrict the
> traffic by "who", not by destination. I.e. in the Anreinerverkehr case,
> [...] it's no longer about the destination, but which
> group of people you, or the passengers, belong to. It's not about the "for
> a purpose (like agricultural, forestry, delivery), nor "by permission", and
> it's not about how your vehicle is registered as (the key part)
> 
> The number of different access tag values should be kept to a minimum,
[...]
> There's already a list of "by use" keys in on the Key:access page, although
> only "disabled" is directly comparable;

The access tags are built like this:
=

"disabled" is not a mode of transport. Therefore, it should rather be a
value than a key. The reason it is a key is because it was introduced in
OSM's stone age.

Let's have a look at the currently documented values:
yes, private, no, permissive, agricultural, use_sidepath, delivery,
designated, dismount, discouraged, forestry, destination, customers.

Some belong to the "purpose" category, but others belong to the "group of
people" category, and some values don't fit in either category.

yes ... (matches any category)
no ... (matches any category)
private ... owners and people with granted permission => group of people
permissive ... all except people with revoked permisson => group of people
agricultural ... purpose
use_sidepath ... same as "no" + hint to traffic sign
delivery ... purpose
designated ... same as "yes" + hint to traffic sign
dismount ... same as "no" + hint to traffic sign
discouraged ... same as "yes" + hint to traffic sign
forestry ... purpose
destination ... route geometry
customers ... group of people

So we've got 3x "group of people". The new tag will just be the forth in
that category.

> - however, if there are reasons why setting a destination there is subject
> to "doesn't belong to a group of people" limits, let's invent a new key,
> or a group of keys.

If you like to move the "group of people" category to new keys, you need to
deprecate access=private/permissive/customers to stay consistent.

> Those tags could then be used to tell that if the user
> has a destination there, they can go, but there may be reasons that they
> legally can't set a (motor) destination there.
> 
> So, the tags, for example:
> 
> motor_vehicle=destination
> + destination:limited=Anreinerverkehr

Non-English values with uppercase letters? Are you serious?
You misspelled it, and other will misspell it too. And nobody except
German-speaking people will have an idea what this tag means. Even among
them, there's a lot of misconception and dispute regarding that word.

> (latter would apply to whatever mode has =destination)
> + destination:limited:something=Johannesbach fishing resort
> when not obvious and when necessary to describe which is the only
> possible point of "contact" the local system requires.

How are routers supposed to make use of that free-text tag?
What does the "something" part mean?
I am quite puzzled, and I fear that data consumers will be too.

> or, if necessary (doubt it, but for future reference)
> destination:limited:motor_vehicle=Anleiter
> destination:limited:hgv=(something else)
> 
> The values can be indexed and explained in the wiki, and shown to the
> user as-is or with explanations.

Shown to the user? At what stage? And remember that applications are not
limited to route calculation. Displaying lists with explanations for each
single road may get difficult in a paper map.

> The second possible solution is to use only tags that define the restrictions
> group by group:
> - motor_vehicle=private
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=no

Non-English words with uppercase letters even in keys?

> *
> - motor_vehicle=destination
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=yes
> 
> Here, the prefix "limited:" is used to tell that the latter part is a name of
> a group. limited:disabled= and limited:customers= would be possible
> (this is why I opposed using customers as an access value, it's not a
> legal access type but a group).

Anrainerverkehr is not a group. So it does not fit in your tagging scheme.

"limited" sounds like a shortage. When you suggest a tagging scheme about
groups of people, you better name it like motor_vehicle:for=* (compare to
social_facility:for=*).
But it won't work either way, because you are soon getting 2-dimensional.
E.g. for group A it may be vehicle=yes and for group B it may be
vehicle=destination and for group C it may be vehicle=no. You need to
incorporate your scheme into
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions.

Anyway, it's already too late. The ship has sailed. You opposed "customers",
but you did not stop it. Let alone "private", which stands for a group as
well. You will never get access=private deprecated.

> For what's it worth, 

[Tagging] Conditional restriction: oneway

[Wolfgang Hinsch]

Hi,

there is a contradiction in the wiki, 


In paragraph "Restriction type" there is a link to oneway=* while in 
paragraph "Direction" is wirtten "... use forward and backward ..." .

oneway=* has the values yes|-1|no|reversible

oneway:conditional ist tagged 207 times using oneway=* and 11 times 
using forward/backward.

I think the paragraph "Direction" should be updated saying "use the 
direction values used by the original key value, in most cases forward and 
backward, but e.g. oneway:conditional=@ ...

regards, Wolfgang


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[François Lacombe]

According to this wikipedia article : NYC Water supply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_system

I see many terms to talk about Catskill Aqueduct which is a major part
of this system : aquduct, conduit, tunnel, siphon... but pipeline is
never used.
Google tells nothing about Catskill pipeline but has many results
regarding Catskill aqueduct.

Again here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_%28water_supply%29
I think the sentence "Modern aqueducts may also use pipelines", which
sounds like "An aqueduct is not always a pipeline".

I agree with Colin : a pipeline is a route, but won't be composed of
bare rock drilled tunnels.

The waterway=penstock should exist on the wiki to summarize all this
interesting discussion.


All the best
François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux


2015-10-09 17:40 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
>
>
>
>
> I see a pipeline as analogous to a route, i.e. from one place to another,
> made up of many contiguous segments of varying types. Many of these segments
> may be (steel) pipes, but they may also be drilled through rock or whatever.
> A penstock is a particular function of certain pipelines, for example from
> high up to the turbine hall. This pipeline can be made of all kinds of
> segments, just like all other pipelines.
>
> //colin
>
>
>
> On 2015-10-09 16:59, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> 2015-10-07 1:02 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> I'd like to think anything carrying waste water (sewer) would have a non
> permeable lining.. and that lining could be called a 'pipe' and thus it is a
> 'pipeline'.
>
> To me the 'tubes' in my house for carrying water/gas are pipes .. and as
> they are a line then they are pipelines!
>
>
> I'd like to consider the pipeline is almost replacable by its operator.
> A tunnel, furthermore when it's shielded, carrying water isn't
> replacable at all and its components aren't pipes at all.
>
> Digging rock to get a tunnel is a lot heavier than installing a
> pipeline. It doesn't have the same environmental footprint too.
>
> Ok to say that sewerage facilities are almost pipelines, but
> sometimes, they are drains or tunnel.
>
>
> 2015-10-09 16:28 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>
>
> The problem with man_made + waterway on the same node, is both are top level
> tags.
> Here you'd want a refinement tag for pipeline.
>
>
> I prefer to say that both man_made=pipeline and waterway=* can be
> standalone to have a meaning instead of the "top level" expression.
>
> The extension I propose (I'm not refining any existing values here)
> isn't only focused on pipeline but on tunnels too.
> Due to the reasons we talked this week it shouldn't only concern pipelines.
>
> --
>
> There are two valid but separate goals to keep in mind.  Are you mapping
> the:
> * Visible surface features
> * The flow of material
>
> Both are valid mapping goals.  For mapping the flow you want a continuous
> link of
> tags that imply water flow.  That penstock comes from a reservoir or weir,
> passes through a generating station, and exits into a canal which dumps into
> a river
> or a sink.  That flow could be one way or in the case of storage reservoirs
> two ways (pumped
> uphill at low demand times).
>
> Equally valid is mapping the surface expression only.  Those are pipes
> sticking up out of the ground (a man made feature).
>
>
> I would like to map the visible surface features : man_made=pipeline
> ONLY when the penstock is visible and composed of pipes
> AND I would like to map the flow of material with waterway=penstock at
> the same time.
>
> A penstock may be a pipeline but water is always flowing inside isn't it ?
>
> Cheers
>
> François Lacombe
>
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com
> @InfosReseaux
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> 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] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I don't care how many countries are affected. It's a distinctive meaning, 
> so it deserves a distinctive tag. I get really angry whenever people 
> write "I oppose that tag because I don't need it in my country." 

Indeed.

However, localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal
tags.

Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a
bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden,
and cannot be authorised (whereas it can be authorised on other rights of
way). Then we have "restricted byways". And "byways open to all traffic".
And "unclassified county roads". And so on.

It's madly complex. It would be inappropriate to ask the rest of the world
to accept special tag values just for this specific use, but on the other
hand, it's not realistic for UK mappers to break this down into 30 'atomic'
tags per path. (Especially because the permissions for each path type do
occasionally get redefined, as per
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents.)

So we use the standard OSM broad-brush duck tagging (highway=track,
highway=footway, highway=cycleway etc.) and add a UK-specific value to
record the legal status of the path (designation=public_bridleway,
designation=restricted_byway, designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic etc.).
That way, it's easy to map, easy to parse in outline, possible to parse in
detail, and doesn't impose a burden on the 95% of non-UK mappers or the 99%
of data consumers who don't care. It's the same approach as the
'motorroad=yes' tag used by German mappers.

I would encourage you to follow this approach, rather than trying to
overload the solution for a localised problem onto a universal tag.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/new-access-value-tp5856193p5856628.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:41 AM, François Lacombe 
wrote:
>
> Currently, I find something missing regarding man_made=pipeline +
> substance=water because a pipe carrying water can correspond to many
> things in reality.
> man_made=pipeline + substance=water + *waterway=penstock* would fill the
> lack.
>

The problem with man_made + waterway on the same node, is both are top
level tags.
Here you'd want a refinement tag for pipeline.

--

There are two valid but separate goals to keep in mind.  Are you mapping
the:
* Visible surface features
* The flow of material

Both are valid mapping goals.  For mapping the flow you want a continuous
link of
tags that imply water flow.  That penstock comes from a reservoir or weir,
passes through a generating station, and exits into a canal which dumps
into a river
or a sink.  That flow could be one way or in the case of storage reservoirs
two ways (pumped
uphill at low demand times).

Equally valid is mapping the surface expression only.  Those are pipes
sticking up out of the ground (a man made feature).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Colin Smale]

 

Why can a drilled rock tunnel, or an aqueduct for that matter, not be
part of a pipeline? 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? According to this
article that is possible: 

http://www.muehlhan.com/index.php/en/markets-and-references/bridges-pipelines/penstock


"Penstock" indicates the function, not a means of construction. 

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." 

--colin 

On 2015-10-09 18:27, François Lacombe wrote: 

> According to this wikipedia article : NYC Water supply
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_system
> 
> I see many terms to talk about Catskill Aqueduct which is a major part
> of this system : aquduct, conduit, tunnel, siphon... but pipeline is
> never used.
> Google tells nothing about Catskill pipeline but has many results
> regarding Catskill aqueduct.
> 
> Again here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_%28water_supply%29
> I think the sentence "Modern aqueducts may also use pipelines", which
> sounds like "An aqueduct is not always a pipeline".
> 
> I agree with Colin : a pipeline is a route, but won't be composed of
> bare rock drilled tunnels.
> 
> The waterway=penstock should exist on the wiki to summarize all this
> interesting discussion.
> 
> All the best
> François Lacombe
> 
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com [1]
> @InfosReseaux
> 
> 2015-10-09 17:40 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : 
> 
>> I see a pipeline as analogous to a route, i.e. from one place to another,
>> made up of many contiguous segments of varying types. Many of these segments
>> may be (steel) pipes, but they may also be drilled through rock or whatever.
>> A penstock is a particular function of certain pipelines, for example from
>> high up to the turbine hall. This pipeline can be made of all kinds of
>> segments, just like all other pipelines.
>> 
>> //colin
>> 
>> On 2015-10-09 16:59, François Lacombe wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> 2015-10-07 1:02 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> I'd like to think anything carrying waste water (sewer) would have a non
>> permeable lining.. and that lining could be called a 'pipe' and thus it is a
>> 'pipeline'.
>> 
>> To me the 'tubes' in my house for carrying water/gas are pipes .. and as
>> they are a line then they are pipelines!
>> 
>> I'd like to consider the pipeline is almost replacable by its operator.
>> A tunnel, furthermore when it's shielded, carrying water isn't
>> replacable at all and its components aren't pipes at all.
>> 
>> Digging rock to get a tunnel is a lot heavier than installing a
>> pipeline. It doesn't have the same environmental footprint too.
>> 
>> Ok to say that sewerage facilities are almost pipelines, but
>> sometimes, they are drains or tunnel.
>> 
>> 2015-10-09 16:28 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>> 
>> The problem with man_made + waterway on the same node, is both are top level
>> tags.
>> Here you'd want a refinement tag for pipeline.
>> 
>> I prefer to say that both man_made=pipeline and waterway=* can be
>> standalone to have a meaning instead of the "top level" expression.
>> 
>> The extension I propose (I'm not refining any existing values here)
>> isn't only focused on pipeline but on tunnels too.
>> Due to the reasons we talked this week it shouldn't only concern pipelines.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> There are two valid but separate goals to keep in mind.  Are you mapping
>> the:
>> * Visible surface features
>> * The flow of material
>> 
>> Both are valid mapping goals.  For mapping the flow you want a continuous
>> link of
>> tags that imply water flow.  That penstock comes from a reservoir or weir,
>> passes through a generating station, and exits into a canal which dumps into
>> a river
>> or a sink.  That flow could be one way or in the case of storage reservoirs
>> two ways (pumped
>> uphill at low demand times).
>> 
>> Equally valid is mapping the surface expression only.  Those are pipes
>> sticking up out of the ground (a man made feature).
>> 
>> I would like to map the visible surface features : man_made=pipeline
>> ONLY when the penstock is visible and composed of pipes
>> AND I would like to map the flow of material with waterway=penstock at
>> the same time.
>> 
>> A penstock may be a pipeline but water is always flowing inside isn't it ?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> François Lacombe
>> 
>> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
>> www.infos-reseaux.com [1]
>> @InfosReseaux
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[François Lacombe]

Hi everyone,

2015-10-07 1:02 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> I'd like to think anything carrying waste water (sewer) would have a non
> permeable lining.. and that lining could be called a 'pipe' and thus it is a
> 'pipeline'.
>
> To me the 'tubes' in my house for carrying water/gas are pipes .. and as
> they are a line then they are pipelines!

I'd like to consider the pipeline is almost replacable by its operator.
A tunnel, furthermore when it's shielded, carrying water isn't
replacable at all and its components aren't pipes at all.

Digging rock to get a tunnel is a lot heavier than installing a
pipeline. It doesn't have the same environmental footprint too.

Ok to say that sewerage facilities are almost pipelines, but
sometimes, they are drains or tunnel.


2015-10-09 16:28 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>
> The problem with man_made + waterway on the same node, is both are top level
> tags.
> Here you'd want a refinement tag for pipeline.

I prefer to say that both man_made=pipeline and waterway=* can be
standalone to have a meaning instead of the "top level" expression.

The extension I propose (I'm not refining any existing values here)
isn't only focused on pipeline but on tunnels too.
Due to the reasons we talked this week it shouldn't only concern pipelines.

> --
>
> There are two valid but separate goals to keep in mind.  Are you mapping
> the:
> * Visible surface features
> * The flow of material
>
> Both are valid mapping goals.  For mapping the flow you want a continuous
> link of
> tags that imply water flow.  That penstock comes from a reservoir or weir,
> passes through a generating station, and exits into a canal which dumps into
> a river
> or a sink.  That flow could be one way or in the case of storage reservoirs
> two ways (pumped
> uphill at low demand times).
>
> Equally valid is mapping the surface expression only.  Those are pipes
> sticking up out of the ground (a man made feature).

I would like to map the visible surface features : man_made=pipeline
ONLY when the penstock is visible and composed of pipes
AND I would like to map the flow of material with waterway=penstock at
the same time.

A penstock may be a pipeline but water is always flowing inside isn't it ?

Cheers

François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux



>
> ___
> 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] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

[Colin Smale]

 

I see a pipeline as analogous to a route, i.e. from one place to
another, made up of many contiguous segments of varying types. Many of
these segments may be (steel) pipes, but they may also be drilled
through rock or whatever. A penstock is a particular function of certain
pipelines, for example from high up to the turbine hall. This pipeline
can be made of all kinds of segments, just like all other pipelines. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-09 16:59, François Lacombe wrote: 

> Hi everyone,
> 
> 2015-10-07 1:02 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: 
> 
>> I'd like to think anything carrying waste water (sewer) would have a non
>> permeable lining.. and that lining could be called a 'pipe' and thus it is a
>> 'pipeline'.
>> 
>> To me the 'tubes' in my house for carrying water/gas are pipes .. and as
>> they are a line then they are pipelines!
> 
> I'd like to consider the pipeline is almost replacable by its operator.
> A tunnel, furthermore when it's shielded, carrying water isn't
> replacable at all and its components aren't pipes at all.
> 
> Digging rock to get a tunnel is a lot heavier than installing a
> pipeline. It doesn't have the same environmental footprint too.
> 
> Ok to say that sewerage facilities are almost pipelines, but
> sometimes, they are drains or tunnel.
> 
> 2015-10-09 16:28 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : 
> 
>> The problem with man_made + waterway on the same node, is both are top level
>> tags.
>> Here you'd want a refinement tag for pipeline.
> 
> I prefer to say that both man_made=pipeline and waterway=* can be
> standalone to have a meaning instead of the "top level" expression.
> 
> The extension I propose (I'm not refining any existing values here)
> isn't only focused on pipeline but on tunnels too.
> Due to the reasons we talked this week it shouldn't only concern pipelines.
> 
>> --
>> 
>> There are two valid but separate goals to keep in mind.  Are you mapping
>> the:
>> * Visible surface features
>> * The flow of material
>> 
>> Both are valid mapping goals.  For mapping the flow you want a continuous
>> link of
>> tags that imply water flow.  That penstock comes from a reservoir or weir,
>> passes through a generating station, and exits into a canal which dumps into
>> a river
>> or a sink.  That flow could be one way or in the case of storage reservoirs
>> two ways (pumped
>> uphill at low demand times).
>> 
>> Equally valid is mapping the surface expression only.  Those are pipes
>> sticking up out of the ground (a man made feature).
> 
> I would like to map the visible surface features : man_made=pipeline
> ONLY when the penstock is visible and composed of pipes
> AND I would like to map the flow of material with waterway=penstock at
> the same time.
> 
> A penstock may be a pipeline but water is always flowing inside isn't it ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> François Lacombe
> 
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com [1]
> @InfosReseaux
> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging