Talk:Proposed features/Bore

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weight of history

It has to be said the history has got a great weight here. When we study the usage table, choosing between man_made=petroleum_well, man_made=water_well or man_made=borehole, we have 3 tags for the same thing.
I'd be in favour of moving every bore hole to man_made=borehole + substance=* although the existing tags has great usage figures.
We have to prepare answers to people asking why we have 3 tags for the same purpose. Fanfouer (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Could it be something like pipe (fully filled) man_made=pipeline vs open channel (has free surface) tunnel=culvert flow? Don't know much about oil wells. For water wells, I'm reminded by buckets vs pumped ones.
Cf a possible 3rd word after "borehole" and "well: "shaft". It may refer to any vertical openings. "Well shaft" is a word that's used too. Or they can be used alongisde (eg,_shafts,_and_boreholes,; also used in Tag:man_made=water_well#Description as "vertical or sometimes horizontal excavation, shaft or structure"). The definitions on purpose and physical accessibility can be various. On a larger scale usable by humans , there are man_made=mineshaft and historic=mine_shaft for mining, as well as unspecified man_made=shaft (although man_made=adit is seemingly focused on mining) and man_made=ventilation_shaft / railway=ventilation_shaft.
When compared, a "well" may refer to a wider assembly for resource extraction, while "borehole" is a narrower generic structure possibly for science and monitoring (in that case it will be in a man_made=monitoring_station). A well can contain a borehole, and other parts or equipment.
---- Kovposch (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand, thank you and acknowledge there are different constructions for different environments and extraction means (pumped or not). There are many criteria and parameters to take care of before digging the ground to extract something and hopefully we may find several OSM tagging for those different structures. However, it's barely related to the substance. You'll independently dig horizontally to extract water or oil, depending on the geological situation.
It's completely ok to have well, shaft, adit words in tagging and it's even better without substance's name in it, that's my point. Fanfouer (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, man_made=well is deprecated. So at some point in history, man_made=well was used until someone decided that different tags for petroleum_well and water_well was better... My understand is that deprecating two tags with >140,000 uses each would be practically impossible (?), and would undo the decision to use petroleum_well/water_well over well --Kylenz (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to find discussion about man_made=well deprecation. Both petroleum_well and water_well aren't reviewed yet and no vote show a global consensus about them. Decisions aren't permanent on OSM, they can be enhanced with additional proposals or unforeseen issues questions and that's what we are discussing about now. It is actually possible to deprecate values with great usage, with caution and robust approach. Fanfouer (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the mailing list it sounds like replacing petroleum_well/water_well with borehole will be a difficult and controversial endeavour. I think this proposal should remain as-is: borehole will supplement petroleum_well and water_well. --Kylenz (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
man_made=borehole + substance=* seems problematic, man_made=borehole + substance=water may be several distinct things (geothermal installation, man_made=water_well, scientific sampling, pollution monitoring, fracking injection etc) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Exactly like man_made=water_well. Currently its definition say such wells allow to access water (drinkable or not), not what you'll do with it. Note that substance=* allows to distinguish water, hot_water or steam. Fanfouer (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion below will help address this? --Kylenz (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Neither as documented right now nor use that I am familiar with would match cases like geothermal installation or fracking injection well Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Current documentation doesn't describe particular water usage behind the water access term. We can't conclude about drinking water, geothermal installation, pollution monitoring, that's my point. It's obviously not injection, fracking or whatever else than water access. If people found it was more relevant to focus on certain usages, document and review those changes is necessary for collaboration sake. Fanfouer (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
"We can't conclude about drinking water, geothermal installation, pollution monitoring" - we can do this basing on observing how tag is actually used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
These situations particularly catch my attention: node 4397731422, node 1264992177, node 4393894693 (Hveraborg is a thermal area in the northern moorland Tvidaegra), node 5636713462 (Geothermal well) and so on... Fanfouer (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Specific tags?

Would it be possible to have a specific tag for a given borehole type rather than creating a catchall value? (yeah, that is an exact opposite of what Fanfouer proposes) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Not so opposite since I find desirable to have respective tags for structures, substances and usages. Adding a classification for wells, boreholes, shafts, adits is fine and a good start Fanfouer (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
How about man_made=borehole + borehole=extraction/injection/monitoring/geotechnical/probing/reasearch/temperature? You can still combine with substance=* if applicable. The discouraged combinations would be man_made=borehole + borehole=extraction + substance=water/oil/gas since these are directly covered by water_well/petroleum_well. I think borehole=* is better than usage=* since usage is already used by many different features --Kylenz (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
To me, we need another key than man_made=* for borehole (and shaft, adit) value to complete existing water_well/petroleum_well with their structure/construction. Another key or another combinations (e.g man_made=monitoring_station for monitoring) would be necessary to classify usages. borehole=extraction isn't the best option because a shaft or an adit can be intended for extraction too, it's not specific to borehole technique. Fanfouer (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, do you want a 'usage' or 'purpose' tag which could be used on bores, shafts, and adits? I thought broad tags like usage=* and service=* were frowned upon nowadays. The problem with a tag that covers adits and boreholes is that many options would be invalid - usage=injection/geotechnical/monitoring/temperature doesn't seem logical with man_made=adit. Likewise, usage=mining works for adits but not for boreholes. Wouldn't it be easier to have borehole=* to describe boreholes, and adit=* to describe adits? --Kylenz (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
A given value could be incompatible with another one, depending on applicability. It's obvious many railway world values for usage=* will be inapplicable for waterway=* and it doesn't prevent to combine usage=* with both railway=* and waterway=* Fanfouer (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal regarding the extraction vs injection part. Haven't addressed the usage=* vs borehole=* part.--Kylenz (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic statement about semantic equivalence to existing tagging

The proposal states that man_made=borehole + substance=water would be equivalent to man_made=water_well and the latter should be used instead. But depending on what definition of man_made=borehole you want to adopt (there is not indication of that yet) and what meaning substance=* is to have in that context that might not be the case. man_made=water_well de facto means an artificial structure actually used to obtain water from an underground aquifer for use as water. That means for example a failed bore that was intended to access water but failed to do so does not quality. Neither does a bore created and used to monitor quality and potential contamination of groundwater - that is not man_made=water_well either. Be careful not to implicitly change the definition of man_made=water_well (which is already used often in a broader way than would be useful). --Imagico (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, good point, perhaps the discussion above will help address this? --Kylenz (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't get from current definition of man_made=water_well the water usage. It allows to access water from an aquifer, whatever the usage can be and whatever the temperature of the aquifer can be. A borehole is one of possible construction for a water well, thus from my understanding man_made=borehole + substance=water implies man_made=water_well (the reverse is wrong) Fanfouer (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
When i write man_made=water_well de facto means... that refers to the de facto meaning of the tag based on how mappers use it. And that is for structures used to extract water for use as water. A sampling bore used for groundwater quality surveillance is not typically tagged as man_made=water_well. If you make an implicit statement to the effect to extend use of man_made=water_well for that and other cases in your proposal that would suggest to dilute significantly how meaningful existing mapping of 150k featuresis .
If you like to introduce a new tag for mapping boreholes based on either an engineering definition or a definition based on the intend of creating it that in my idea is completely independent of the existing man_made=water_well tagging. man_made=water_well does not imply there to be a borehole and the existence of a borehole (engineered and suited for extraction of water or created with the intention to access water) does not imply man_made=water_well.
--Imagico (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This de facto is as important as my lack of happiness to discuss about unwritten things.
If you make an implicit statement It's not implicit to follow what wiki stands for, I'm sorry. It's even hard to understand how this proposal and their contributors could be responsible of anything since everyone who had used man_made=water_well more than 150k times didn't spent time to make documentation more precise about their views. I'm not supposed to know them especially when reverse is often true. Fanfouer (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if i am parsing your comment correctly. I completely understand that it is not comfortable for you that the meaning of a tag in OSM is not what some (authoritative) documentation declares it to be but how mappers actually use it. But that is how OSM works.
But i think it is fine to close this particular discussion since i have made my point and the matter has become part of the other active discussions here.
--Imagico (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)