Talk:Tag:man made=wastewater plant

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old content



It makes sense to me, as a native English speaker. Just one question - would this apply to the entire area, or to each individual part? For example, in these sewage works I drew each of the filtration beds visible in the aerial photography. I think it's good to add this much detail in, but it's far from perfect as natural=water (the tag I used). Ideally I could draw an area for the extent of the sewage works, and then features within it useful for navigation (such as the filtration beds) without them appearing to software as natural lakes or swimming pools ;-) TomChance 23:04, 22 May 2007 (BST)

Dito to Tom Chances point. I've added the pits, and filtration beds seperatly. I didn't trace, but precariously rode round them instead, seemed to do the trick. Sewage works is the common term, but if wastewater_plant is more self discriptive then thats probably better. Would the specific parts of the sewage works be a sub set of tags under wastewater_plant=...? Ben 23:56, 24 May 2007 (BST)

I'd suggest tagging the whole area as wastewater_plant, and then tagging the specific parts separately. A node would be acceptable if one didn't feel like (or was unable to due to overgrowth or something) tracing the whole plant. --Hawke 23:56, 11 June 2007 (BST)

"wastwater_plant" sounds reasonable to me. I would also suggest "node" and "area": node for small plants or a mapper not putting als details in or not having e.g. aerial photos. The use of a area would give more details. The basins should be tagged seperateley in my point of view. 2007-11-01 MichaelK

There is more to wastewater than just plants. One could differentiate between pumping stations, flow control valves/sluice, treatment plants, overflow basins (near suburbs for flood protection), sediment basins (mostly round basins on a plant), gravity/pressure pipelines and more. If we add a key group called 'wastewater' instead of 'wastewater_plant' then a whole range of values could be used allowing the greatest flexibility (i.e. plant, pumping_station, flood_basin, basin, pipe, sluice, etc). This is analog to e.g. the 'power' key. --Lambertus 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the difference between the name 'wastewater' and 'sewage', sewage can be considered a subset of wastewater. Personally I feel wastewater might be a better choice. --Lambertus 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


  • I approve this proposal (eather "sewage_plant" or "wastewater_plant", but IMHO "sewage_plant" is the better choice --Cbm 08:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve wastewater_plant. If a native speaker can't get the spelling of sewage correctly twice, I don't think that's the better option. Even if I did know the word as a non native English speaker. Polyglot 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Myfanwy 02:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Franc 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Swampwallaby 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) EdoM (lets talk about it) 08:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) Robx 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) Pieren 11:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (both sewage_plant and wastewater_plant are good for me) --Eimai 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) -- MikeCollinson 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) A good example of an internationally understandable tag value.
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) --Cohort 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) -- sadam 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) ;-) -- Ulfl 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal (wastewater_plant) --Cartinus 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting close, feature approved. -- Ulfl 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

natural=water vs. landuse=reservoir

I wonder why landuse=reservoir, as recommended on earlier versions of this page for the treatment containers, was called 'old' and later removed completely in favour of natural=water? To call the wastewater in the containers 'natural' sounds in fact very unnatural to me. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For me, this is probably because natural=water is a "class" used by the renderers to draw a blue area.
The answer of your question coud be in Proposed features/Reservoir?

Note: There are several type of wastewater "plants".
One of them is  constructed wetland that look "natural".
--Pyrog (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wastewater plants with nature preserves

Plants in my area frequently have a quaternary treatment stage whereby the outflow trickles through a wetland which is designed to remove excess nutrients while doubling as a nature preserve. Should these nature preserves be considered part of the plant? Invidious (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I've mapped a couple of this sort of thing on treatment works for small villages. See [1] and [2]. I just added a natural=wetland, but from memory these were reedbeds (Phragmites australis). SK53 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)