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)

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)