Approved features/Tag:man made=pipeline

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal Tag:man made=pipeline is located at Tag:man made=pipeline


A tag for major pipelines - gas, water, oil, etc.

The pipeline may be above ground, under water or underground


Applies to ways only

  • man_made=pipeline "Here is a pipeline"
  • location=* underground|underwater|overground (optional)
  • type=value This can be <water|oil|gas|sewage|any substance> (optional)
  • operator=name <name of the company operating the pipeline> (optional)


Pipelines could be rendered as a dark blue dashed line. Underground pipelines could render with the same pattern, but with a more washed-out shade, possible with a tunnel-like symbol at the point they go underground.


  • The operator-tag also fits in here pretty well.
  • Comment on suggested rendering: Is there another example where the layer tag controls how something is rendered? I believed the layer tag was just a relative indication, and that no particular layer tag would indicate that something is underground. We may need an additional tag to indicate whether the pipeline is above ground or below ground. This is quite significant, as most above ground pipelines would be rendered on a "normal" map, but below ground pipelines are usually for specialised interests.
    • sorry, i explained that very badly (the underground part) and didn't really think it through. yes, you're right - i was thinking of something along the lines of rail/road tunnels. a separate tag would be better see. above. i will change the contents to type as well .seems logical Myfanwy 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The basic man_made=pipeline get my thumbs-up, I think I've already used it. How about using type=instead of contents=? That would join a number of tags using type= tag as a reusuable qualifier. MikeCollinson 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reuse seems like a bad idea; "type" is way too vague also. Maybe some namespacing? (pipeline:contents, pipeline:operator, and pipeline:location) --Hawke 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • sounds useful to me. Underground/underwater property is defined by using layer=xx, right? I would prefer type= over contents. --ramack 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. I wonder what non-copyright data is available? Anyone fancy doing the UK Liquid Natural Gas pipeline while the soil's still disturbed and you can see where it was laid? Don't forget the poles with fluorescent caps marking pipelines in the UK. Perhaps water authorities would provide some data, depending on the source of their geocoding.--crouchingbadger 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Some underground pipeline (especially the smaller ones) are well marked by signpost on the ground. The exact location (and depth) of strategic gas pipeline crossing Europe is however top-secret. Gummibaerli 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could also use it for penstock (pipeline carrying water under pressure to turbines, hydroelectric waterplant) Gummibaerli 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea! But I hope the pipelines won't be rendered right on the mapnik OSM layer - that's an openSTREETmap after all. And there will be lots and lots of pipes, if we start mapping the waterducts - they will clog up the map with data, which is not needed by 99% of OSM users. I may add some central heating pipelines, that are a common thing in my city. What type tag would be suited for them? type=heating? type=heat? Oh, by the way, a diameter tag can also be used for pipelines. --Jekader 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Voting is open
I approve this proposal. -- sadam 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. -- JonS 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. -- Myfanwy 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Franc 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Cohort 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. -- Lefty1963 07:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --DrMark 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. -- MikeCollinson 08:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Geoff 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. -- Ulfl 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
voting is now closed, this proposal has been accepted