Talk:Tag:route=pipeline

Not necessary

It's not necessary to make a relation to combine man_made=pipeline ways into a route relation. Database users can easy combine all pipeline ways which share the same characteristics. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in the general case and I discover now this type of relation.

Proposed_features/PipelineExtension introduces count=* on man_made=pipeline which is intended to group return pipes but can also be used to group many parallel pipes on the same osm way. It's an equivalent use case to Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal and relation may be useful to state which pipes are connected. However, such a relation is an important topic and it should be discussed just like power routing Fanfouer (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but it makes it much easier having them grouped together and allows you to refer to the whole pipeline by a single relation/id reference. Aharvey (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Theses relations should be replaced

Hi @Quincylvania:, follow up to your recent modifications on this page and past discussions upside, here is a little update about type=route.
Recently on power circuits, this proposal discouraged type=route + route=power in favor of type=power + power=circuit for clear reasons.
Same mostly applies to pipelines and they should get their own relations apart from type=route which should remain dedicated for transportation. It's a work that remains to be done. Fanfouer (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, well regardless of the tag I still don't think this page should be discouraging grouping together pipeline segments in a relation. Quincylvania (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That's right, particularly on complex pipelines systems Fanfouer (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)