File talk:UndergroundPipelinesExample.jpg

Nothing left to map? Try underground pipelines, deduced from manholes, wall markers and open pit construction work.

This could wait a while, until I get the example area a bit more complete

Looks good. Ojw 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

More examples Daeron 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see some issues with this mapping idea. There's the obvious point that this could potentially clutter our map data a lot, making street level data editing/use more difficult. Aside from that though, it has poor verifiability. I would say underground utilities mostly belong in a different project outside of OSM.

I'm not saying all this because I think you've done a terrible thing and you should remove your data immediately... I'm saying it because I think it's a bad idea to advocate mapping underground pipelines by putting this as a featured image. There are other things we should be encouraging users to do.

-- Harry Wood 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Deducing pipeline positions from manhole covers is just as unverifiable as things we already do like deducing parish boundaries from wheelie-bin labels? Tempting to make it featured just to get this sort of discussion going properly. Ojw 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

With a systematic approach, good survey coverage and careful deduction (diameters only go up or down, but there could be cyclic routes to get around broken pipes - and pipes aren't allowed to go under buildings) the biggest problem is that the data will be incomplete. Acknowledging that it's a relatively minor deficiency that some pipes are mapped at most few meters to the side (relative to the road) when, say, the underground fire hydrant covers are not directly over the pipes. IMO they are verifiable (there is a pipe or there isn't), but they're just hard to verify. Except some older heat pipelines in the winter, when the snow melts from the leaked heat. Alv 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"the biggest problem is that the data will be incomplete" Yep maybe you're right. That is more of a problem than the verifiability aspects of it. It's just one of many ideas for super-detailed mapping which is just a bit of a distraction. As I say, my point is not that it is wrong to map these things. It's fine for one or two users to distract themselves with that kind of thing (or at least it would create unnecessary tension to try to stop them) but by featuring this on the main page we are steering new users away from more helpful contributions they could be focussing on. The Main Page featured image has a role to play in putting out the right kind of message, and telling new users that it's cool to fanny around drawing pipes or inventing other madcap tagging schemes, is not the right kind of message in my opinion.

I think it should be a criteria for picking future featured images, that we at least try not to draw new users into dubious/debatable mapping/tagging ideas.

-- Harry Wood 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)