|Applies to:||node or way|
|Definition:||Water flowing over something else in a man-made structure. Replaces "waterway=aqueduct" and makes it work like the bridge tag.|
|Rendered as:||Like a bridge, but with a waterway on it|
This proposal has been obsoleted by the approved "Bridge" proposal.
Currently, we have "waterway=aqueduct" on nodes only. It seems to me to make much more sense to treat aqueducts like bridges, with which they are closely analogous. So we should replace it with "aqueduct=yes", applicable to nodes or ways. See also Proposed_features/Viaduct, which proposes the same thing for viaducts.
Like a bridge, but with a waterway over it instead of a road.
Why not try:
- waterway = canal
- bridge = yes
would the existing bridge code handle that? (it already does roads, railways, and footpaths) Ojw 08:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer
- It might, but that's equivalent to saying we shouldn't bother tagging the differences between bridges, aqueducts and viaducts - they are all just forms of bridge. Is that what you are proposing? It seems like an unnecessary loss of information. Gerv 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree with Ojw. Viaducts and aqueducts are both bridges. Thats no loss of information, the feature encased by the bridge already contains that information. What you're proposing is redundant. How should renderes and alike treat a highway=foo with the aqueduct tag? This analogy also works for tunnel=yes, doesn't it? -- Fröstel 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ojw and fröstel. you can define more in the name tag. but as render and concept regards i think is the same as ( waterway = canal ; bridge = yes )just be sure that renders ok. Sergionaranja 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
...is not open yet.