Talk:Tag:man made=water tower

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Water Tanks

Around here, the foothills are high enough that potable water tanks are built on or in the ground. I'm going to label these as water "towers" as well, unless there is a better way of labeling them. — Val42 03:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "man_made=reservoir_covered"? Ipofanes 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't seem quite right for above-ground cylindrical tanks that are prevalent in the U.S. (e.g.,-117.584803&sspn=0.076193,0.09613&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FfcXCQIdLM3_-A&split=0&t=h&ll=34.169486,-117.482418&spn=0.001125,0.001502&z=19) I'm currently using both water:tank and man_made:water_tank when marking these. reservoir_covered would seem to refer to a reservoir that is actually extending from the ground surface, downward, which is covered (e.g.,-117.584803&sspn=0.076193,0.09613&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FfcXCQIdLM3_-A&split=0&ll=34.149797,-117.454351&spn=0.004759,0.006008&t=h&z=17 ) . AM909 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's a need for man_made:water_tank. These are common in Australia. I do not think that they are water_tower's, nor reservoir_covered's. An alternative would be to use man_made:reservoir, with an additional key to specify whether it is a tower, tank (above ground), covered (below ground), etc. Waldo000000 07:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been using man_made=water_tank as well. While water_towers are distinctive elements of the skyline, water_tanks are normally hidden from view. For most maps, a water_tower should be rendered, whereas water_tanks should probably not. --DanHomerick 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A very good point DanHomerick! Maybe man_made=tower should be used for all high rising structures like the water_towers. There is a new nice proposal, Proposed features/storage tank, for all kind of storage_tanks not only water, they should suit the needs of AM909 above. While this is enough for maps showing landmarks, I understand the point of Waldo000000, water distribution is something very important that could need its own special tags./Johan Jönsson 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we move this value to building=water_tower to combinate with more generic man_made=storage_tank? Water tower will give the shape and storage tank will represent kind of feature on top Fanfouer (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If we are mapping a water storage tank located on the ground at the top of a hill, I would use man_made=storage_tank + building=storage_tank (used 30817 times, compared to only 554 building=water_tower). --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't get if you're against or pro Fanfouer (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you are referring to the initial idea - "potable water tanks are built on or in the ground. I'm going to label these as water "towers" as well" - I am opposed to that. If you are asking about "move this value to building=water_tower", I would use building=storage_tank for water tanks that are on the ground and are not that much taller than they are wide. If they are also very tall like a tower (significantly taller than they are wide) then you could use building=water_tower, but that is not how they are constructed in the areas I know, if they are on a peak. --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, then we agree. On-ground water storage tanks aren't towers. I think we can even move to building=storage_tower as to not make it specific to (drinkable) water, can't you? Fanfouer (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any current use of building=storage_tower in taginfo, and in English it would not make sense to call something a "storage tower" unless it was like a mini-storage building in an urban area which is 20 storeys tall but narrow? And I would use building=storage for a building specifically built with individual self-storage spaces, e.g. - so building=storage_tank makes the most sense here. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Then where the tower term goes? To be clear :
- water towers : building=storage_tower (or something_tower) + man_made=storage_tank + content=water
- on ground reservoir : building=storage_tank (or even building=reservoir) + man_made=storage_tank + content=water Fanfouer (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC) is a man_made=water_tower - it's supported high off the ground (10 meters or more to the bottom of the water tank?). The second, - I can't tell what that is from the photo. Maybe it is covered reservoir? I'm not sure. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) is also a man_made=storage_tank, that's why I wonder if we can't move man_made=water_tower to building=* to combine water tower and storage_tank. Changing the elevation of an actual storage tank for sake of pressure with the help of a special building doesn't change the fact it's first of all a storage tank and tagging should reflect that. Fanfouer (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The tag man_made=water_tower is several years older than man_made=storage_tank, probably because water towers are significant navigational landmarks in many places (like flat parts of Kansas or Iowa, where they are by far the highest thing around and often are painted with the name of the village). It has also been argued that they should be mapped as man_made=tower + tower:type=*, but it is a waste of time to complain that tagging in Openstreetmap is not perfectly systematic. (There is also man_made cooling_tower man_made=communications_tower, historic=tower, etc) --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Appart from historic reasons, having many values to represent a water tank is less usable than a single. We'll have to specify how it interacts with content=*, volume=*, operator=*... each time wich is finally error prone as one kind of water tank can get a better description than another class. Outside appearence, buildings, shapes, material are another considerations and should get their own key instead of filling man_made=* with several values for the same thing. This isn't incompatible with mapping water towers first because they are more visible landmarks as grounded reservoirs and using building=* to do so is better Fanfouer (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Related key-value revisions

World-wide revision of amenity=Water Tower to man_made=water tower involved changing information for five nodes on 20 Nov 2010. --Ceyockey 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Disused water towers

Should we use not better man_made=water_tower + disused=yes instead of disused:man_made=water_tower? According to my feeling, most of the water towers are disused as to their original task. This would have the advantage that a symbol would be drawn into the map.--geozeisig (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello geozeisig, you should know that the tag disused=yes is deprecated, this concerns every context in which it is actually used or has been used. But I can see your point with the thing that many water towers are still water towers which do not contain water anymore. Think about the tag content which is actually used for describing the content of a storaging feature/building. What would be about using man_made=water_tower + abandoned:content=water for the case you mentoined? This would have the advantage of using lifecycle prefixes and not changing the man_made=water_tower.--Lukas458 (talk) 16:22, 01 Jan 2018 (UTC)
I did not find that disused=yes is deprecated. It is used about 50,000 times. We can use man_made=water_tower + abandoned:content=water for that. But I'm afraid it's too complicated so not everyone will understand it. Some water towers have meanwhile a different use and no more any storage tank. Maybe building=water_tower would be the right one. As a result, the symbol would no longer be displayed. --geozeisig (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
IMHO "disused=yes" is deprecated for functions (e.g. restaurant, hospital) but not necessarily for things and structures. A disused water tower remains a water tower, a disused restaurant is not a restaurant any more. FWIW, I know a lot of water towers that are operating. It depends on the area (topography) whether water towers provide an advantage. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Area around the water tower

In Florida, US, this access is usually restricted in a small area around the tower. Other than drawing and tagging the fence, should this area be delineated by land use in any way?

I am not aware of established tags for the landuse, but it could be proposed. Drawing the fence is surely the best way to start. If you were to describe the area, you should take care not to add the area tags to the fence (e.g. you could create a multipolygon for the landuse). --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! -Valerietheblonde (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Twin tags?

Let me get this straight. Water towers like the one in the photo should be tagged:


? Jidanni (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point.
building=water_tower is intended for building shapes while man_made=water_tower regards the building's function (if an old water tower is now used as a house, it keeps building=water_tower but man_made=water_tower is removed).
To take care of render needs and cleanup this tagging, we should keep building=water_tower and merge all man_made water storage related values to a single water_works=* value. Fanfouer (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I see... actually I don't see. So currently I should still use both tags? Jidanni (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the one you want to add still used as a water tower? Fanfouer (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Jidanni (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)