Für Fernwärmeleitungen: hot_water oder heat? Ich fand beides bereits getagged, mehr hot_water, aber heat scheint passender laut:
For the Subject of the translation above ;-) see also english Wikipedia, should we tag it as type=hot_water or type=heat?
I put both into osmarender styles... --Mueck 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are still networks that use steam instead of water, so heat seems to be universal. --Basstoelpel 19:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that it should be used as useful combination, any objections? --Kslotte 12:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason why key=resource could not be used in addition --David mds 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The wiki indicates that type=* should be used. However, we know that this is not standard practive to use 'type', as this is reserved for multi-polygons. Instead pipeline:type=value should be used. --acrosscanadatrails 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not reserved for multipolygons, and not for all relations either. It could be more fitting to use contents=* or pipeline=*, but tools have already supported type=* from start, and type is used far more often than the alternatives. Alv 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, type=* is very bad design. When someone want's to tag a pipeline as Multipolygon (for whatever reason) type=multipolygon must be used. --chris66 18:52, 24 August 2012 (BST)
Wikipedia says: "Pipeline transport is the transportation of goods through a pipe." So, goods=* might be a natural choice. Currently, this tag is used to indicate road access for goods vehicles, but I doubt that it would create confusion when this tag is used on a pipeline (e.g. goods=oil), as goods vehicles are typically not going to travel through or over a pipeline. --Biff (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- content=* might be better, because it's already being used for silos and storage tanks. --Biff (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I put the discussion of examples that was in main page--Xan 11:21, 10 August 2010 (BST) :
Put your examples here.
- Mallorca (Spain): there is an example of combined draw of pipelines and pipeline marker in Mallorca (Spain). The previous photos are the pipeline markers of this zone.
- These look like they're just markers (and an yet unknown feature in the left hand photo), the actual pipeline is underground. See pipeline=marker.
- Yes. It's. Just that. So we have to draw pipeline with a line and pipeline:marker in some nodes in its line, isn't?.--Xan 13:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Both pipelines in example are underground as far as I can see, what about adding an actual overground pipeline (i.e. the trans alaska pipeline), and even a subsea pipeline (sometimes identified by sign posts on land fall locations. --Skippern 14:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I rewrite the wiki. Clearly my examples are pipeline markers. Perhaps we should put more clear description image because we could confuse pipeline and pipeline markers in the actual photo. Modify whatever you want. Thanks. --Xan 15:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC) (this comments should be deleted and put all in discussion)
Should the type for penstock be simply type=water (since that's what it carries)? Or rather something different since water seems to be used for drinking water? Maybe type=penstock? Are there any rendering rules for this already? --Quazgar 23:26, 12 September 2010 (BST)
- Hi, too bad that your question has been ignored for almost a year! I'm mapping the Sierra Nevada foothills and we have dozens of huge penstocks here. (For those who don't know, a penstock is a pipeline that carries water from a reservoir/lake/canal into a powerhouse, which could be some distance away.) I think it would be wrong to restrict "water" to only drinking water. I'll be using type=water for penstocks or any other pipelines that carry water. --T99 11:38, 11 September 2011 (BST)
A siphon is a tunnel or a pipeline where water (or other substance) flows down on one side and up on the other side. Siphons are built where a canal must cross another waterway or a valley. For shallow siphons I have simply used tunnel=culvert. However, a siphon is fundamentally different from a regular culvert. A siphon must be strong and airtight because it relies on the pressure of the incoming water to lift the outgoing water to almost the same elevation.
However, a siphon might be more accurately described as a pipeline, especially when it's a long high-pressure steel pipe rather than a shallow concrete tunnel. Which tagging would be preferred? Any other comments? --T99 11:38, 11 September 2011 (BST)
Pipeline in airspan
- I've used location=ceiling for things hanging under a bridge, and location=overground + bridge=yes (+ layer=1) if the pipe, say, just crosses over a cycleway by itself. Alv 13:11, 23 September 2010 (BST)
- I was thinking about where larger pipelines crosses mayor bodies of water similar to a cable airspan. --Skippern 15:47, 23 September 2010 (BST)
Combined sewer system
There are also combined sewer systems, which combine type=drain and type=sewer. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, for example, newer areas have separate sewage and storm drain systems, while older ones have what could be tagged type=combined. —Michael Z. 2011-04-17 17:27 z
Any idea how to tag pump stations and smaller service stations that are built along pipelines?
- I've been outlining their property footprint with a landuse=industrial poly, and using the name=* and operator=* values where known to provide some more details. For the natural gas pipelines I've been adding to the database, I've focused more on the compressor stations and larger interconnections rather than the smaller, roadside metering stations or pipe access points. --Greggerm (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't misuse "location"
A new proposal
Currently I'm working on a new proposal for additional marker tags and some clarifications. will incorporate the service station and level issues. I'll let you know as soon as it is ready for the public. (unsigned)
- Who are you? Please sign your comments, especially for a new section. PeterIto (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A cleanup tag has been added to this page. What sort of cleanup is being proposed? Is it controversial? If so the lets have the details on the talk page, if not then please just get on with it. PeterIto (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Why you remove the old examples?. See this?
- after the new proposal was voted active, I wanted to get it active ASAP, by copying the proposal 1:1 to the tag page. regarding the old example: it needs to be updated, i.e. since type=* is now substance=*. also, I assume that this is not only a marker, but also a marker with a measurement=odor. maybe you can verify that?
- over the course of the next days/weeks, some features will be moved to dedicated pages, this means that also the existing pipeline=marker page will be updated. than we can include your example again, with updated tags. It will be nice anyway to have examples from different countries. --Rfuegen (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the explanation. I hope you will include my examples in the future wiki page. On the other hand, I don't know the type of mesurement. Thanks,--Xan (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC) And yes, it's only a marker.--Xan (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- the current definition of the manhole=* tag doesn't fit well into the current man_made=pipeline scheme, since it again defines the substance=* (redundancy). I propose to tag manholes as follows:
- this fits well into the scheme of defining valves, marker, ...--Rfuegen (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Having been criticized in Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Voting and Talk:Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#How_about_namespace? lastly, this key has limited proportion of tagging (~0.14% superficially). Meanwhile, there are 3 instances found to be using the elsewhere prevalent from=* & to=* in , , and , which may have been overlooked at that time. In theory, this would also allow via=* to be used if useful. Compared to Talk:Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Create_a_relation, route=pipeline is met with lukewarm response so far.
- Hi Kovposch, I also agree this should be replaced by a relation as tagging places on a way is a redundancy that could be avoided. Relations on utility networks aren't approved so far but way used (see Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal). Fanfouer (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Combined pipe and ...
Some pipelines have an electric line attached to them the entire route.
- Hi Jidanni, I understand this concern and on the other hand I find misleading to tag a pipeline and power line on the same osm line. What will this mean? It can be misleading as it could mean the line is beside the pipeline or the line is inside the pipeline as well.
- I'm ok to group equivalent features on the same geometry and make a distinction between different ones is good too. Look at cable beside pipeline mixing them would lead to confusing things (a voltage combined to a pipeline and a diameter combined to a cable, weird).
- Feel free to provide different example to let us see Fanfouer (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Lines you could crawl under and those you couldn't
The iD editor offers both
and plenty more.
All I know is that some lines are just laid right on top of the ground. No, you couldn't crawl under them.
And some are elevated a little, you could crawl under them.
It seems this is a big distinction, for environmentalists at least, and should not just be "tossed into the same category."
Not a barrier to you and me, but for some animals, yes.
- location=overground is pretty well defined and seem to corresponds to a feature elevated a little a man standing beside can touch (and possibly crawl under). location=surface isn't defined but it could be ok to make a distinction for features that are laid on the ground (a cable or a pipeline aren't laid on the ground have supports to be taged as location=overground most of the time, not to mention location=overhead). Fanfouer (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)