New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Render waterway=drain + location=underground equivalent to waterway=drain + tunnel=yes #2720

Open
gustavecha opened this Issue Jul 31, 2017 · 15 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@gustavecha

gustavecha commented Jul 31, 2017

Hi,

tunnel=yes isn't always appropriate to tag a drain/stream/river going underground. Just because tunnel=yes may be understood to be an actual drain inside a tunnel where humans can go.

I use to tag underground drains as waterway=drain + (man_made=pipeline) + location=underground without any tunnel tag.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333009

It makes them appear on OSM Carto like overground ones.
I find location=undergound enough to show them with dashes

Thank you in advance to consider this potential issue

@kocio-pl kocio-pl added this to the Bugs and improvements milestone Jul 31, 2017

@mboeringa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mboeringa

mboeringa Jul 31, 2017

I think you should be adding tunnel=culvert to this type of feature if you consider it a true waterway, and not just a pipeline:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert

This is the tag designed for this situation of "covered-but-not-human-accessible-tunnel", and is quite unambiguous in meaning no human access.

I know, culverts are generally not that long, but the difference between a pipeline and culvert is essentially meaningless once you start tagging pipelines with waterway tag as well, and expect to see it rendered on the map.

mboeringa commented Jul 31, 2017

I think you should be adding tunnel=culvert to this type of feature if you consider it a true waterway, and not just a pipeline:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert

This is the tag designed for this situation of "covered-but-not-human-accessible-tunnel", and is quite unambiguous in meaning no human access.

I know, culverts are generally not that long, but the difference between a pipeline and culvert is essentially meaningless once you start tagging pipelines with waterway tag as well, and expect to see it rendered on the map.

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Aug 2, 2017

Hi, thank you for your answer.

I would agree with tunnel=culvert particular definition.
By the way, tunnel key also indicates "For a structure that carries water or another liquid some considerable distance then it may be more appropriate to tag it as a pipeline using man_made=pipeline."
That's why I'm using man_made=pipeline, because the feature I took as an example is about 14km long.

I was looking last year a good way to distinguish water carrying tunnels (very low slope, long distances) and penstocks (high slope, short distances near a hydraulic power plant).
Pentsocks are of course tagged with man_made=pipeline but according to tunnel's definition, water carrying galeries had to also.
tunnel=culvert can make the difference I was looking for.

Anyway, it would be great to render waterway=* + location=underground like waterway tunnels in main render (with pipeline or not).

gustavecha commented Aug 2, 2017

Hi, thank you for your answer.

I would agree with tunnel=culvert particular definition.
By the way, tunnel key also indicates "For a structure that carries water or another liquid some considerable distance then it may be more appropriate to tag it as a pipeline using man_made=pipeline."
That's why I'm using man_made=pipeline, because the feature I took as an example is about 14km long.

I was looking last year a good way to distinguish water carrying tunnels (very low slope, long distances) and penstocks (high slope, short distances near a hydraulic power plant).
Pentsocks are of course tagged with man_made=pipeline but according to tunnel's definition, water carrying galeries had to also.
tunnel=culvert can make the difference I was looking for.

Anyway, it would be great to render waterway=* + location=underground like waterway tunnels in main render (with pipeline or not).

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pnorman

pnorman Aug 10, 2017

Collaborator

With under 1k uses so it doesn't show on taginfo and other ways to tag it, this seems like a tagging error and not something we'd want to render.

Collaborator

pnorman commented Aug 10, 2017

With under 1k uses so it doesn't show on taginfo and other ways to tag it, this seems like a tagging error and not something we'd want to render.

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Aug 10, 2017

I agree it's not a well used combination of tags but it doesn't make it semantically wrong.
Furthermore, it's easier to tag overground features than underground ones, and location will be implicit for overground (but any overground river CAN be tagged with location=overground).

I've heard of some speleologists who tracks underground rivers (let's say waterway=stream), but no tunnel because water is flowing between bedrock, siphons and so on. Their work will be rendered as overground river :(

There are +2k use of waterway=* in combination with location=*
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/waterway#combinations

Then what does it take to add location=underground beside tunnel=* in your style sheet for waterway=* ways ?

gustavecha commented Aug 10, 2017

I agree it's not a well used combination of tags but it doesn't make it semantically wrong.
Furthermore, it's easier to tag overground features than underground ones, and location will be implicit for overground (but any overground river CAN be tagged with location=overground).

I've heard of some speleologists who tracks underground rivers (let's say waterway=stream), but no tunnel because water is flowing between bedrock, siphons and so on. Their work will be rendered as overground river :(

There are +2k use of waterway=* in combination with location=*
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/waterway#combinations

Then what does it take to add location=underground beside tunnel=* in your style sheet for waterway=* ways ?

@mboeringa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mboeringa

mboeringa Aug 10, 2017

As I said before, add tunnel=culvert if you really want to see this feature in the map displayed as a waterway instead of pipeline.

You clearly do not consider this a pure "pipeline" case (which often also would imply active pumping, versus the likely gravity fed nature of this feature), so tunnel=culvert seems applicable.

This should be rendered on the map right now without requiring any modifications to the style.

mboeringa commented Aug 10, 2017

As I said before, add tunnel=culvert if you really want to see this feature in the map displayed as a waterway instead of pipeline.

You clearly do not consider this a pure "pipeline" case (which often also would imply active pumping, versus the likely gravity fed nature of this feature), so tunnel=culvert seems applicable.

This should be rendered on the map right now without requiring any modifications to the style.

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Aug 10, 2017

I got your point regarding tunnel=culvert but tunnel=* key won't cover all cases of underground water flows.

That's why I think rendering location=underground just like tunnel=* on waterways can be a more sustainable fix for this issue than editing data and add tunnel=culvert.

The pipeline=* key on the feature doesn't regard the underground location. It's relative to penstock scheme for power plants.
Anyway, pipelines aren't rendered in carto and it's not my point to change this.

gustavecha commented Aug 10, 2017

I got your point regarding tunnel=culvert but tunnel=* key won't cover all cases of underground water flows.

That's why I think rendering location=underground just like tunnel=* on waterways can be a more sustainable fix for this issue than editing data and add tunnel=culvert.

The pipeline=* key on the feature doesn't regard the underground location. It's relative to penstock scheme for power plants.
Anyway, pipelines aren't rendered in carto and it's not my point to change this.

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pnorman

pnorman Aug 10, 2017

Collaborator

Then what does it take to add location=underground beside tunnel=* in your style sheet for waterway=* ways ?

Established use.

Collaborator

pnorman commented Aug 10, 2017

Then what does it take to add location=underground beside tunnel=* in your style sheet for waterway=* ways ?

Established use.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dieterdreist

dieterdreist Aug 11, 2017

dieterdreist commented Aug 11, 2017

@mboeringa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mboeringa

mboeringa Aug 11, 2017

+1, waterways can run underground besides actual tunnels or culverts, e.g. in a cave. Adding tunnel=culvert to the latter would be plain wrong. I wouldn't expect too many of these mapped, so less than 1K is not necessarily a problem.

While I basically agree with this statement, there remains the question whether the style should render any possible form of underground waterway, or just specific ones, like man made culverts.

E.g. adding rendering for a rather generic location=underground, could, as you say, potentially lead to quite a number of complicated and potentially deep "natural" cave systems being mapped. That by itself may not be an issue, but the rendering in a specific style like this one might be.

This is just an open question: would it be acceptable to see some intricate underground carst waterway system being displayed over e.g. a dense city center?

If not, than sticking with specific man made "tunnel" type underground waterways / culvert may be better. The other types would then be for dedicated styles or dynamic overlays.

mboeringa commented Aug 11, 2017

+1, waterways can run underground besides actual tunnels or culverts, e.g. in a cave. Adding tunnel=culvert to the latter would be plain wrong. I wouldn't expect too many of these mapped, so less than 1K is not necessarily a problem.

While I basically agree with this statement, there remains the question whether the style should render any possible form of underground waterway, or just specific ones, like man made culverts.

E.g. adding rendering for a rather generic location=underground, could, as you say, potentially lead to quite a number of complicated and potentially deep "natural" cave systems being mapped. That by itself may not be an issue, but the rendering in a specific style like this one might be.

This is just an open question: would it be acceptable to see some intricate underground carst waterway system being displayed over e.g. a dense city center?

If not, than sticking with specific man made "tunnel" type underground waterways / culvert may be better. The other types would then be for dedicated styles or dynamic overlays.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Aug 21, 2017

Collaborator

For things like 10+km underground pipes or carst waterway system (thanks @mboeringa for great and scary example) any type of special rendering that makes sense is removing them from map.

And I guess that waterway = drain on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333009 is tagging for renderer and is not correct.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Aug 21, 2017

For things like 10+km underground pipes or carst waterway system (thanks @mboeringa for great and scary example) any type of special rendering that makes sense is removing them from map.

And I guess that waterway = drain on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333009 is tagging for renderer and is not correct.

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Aug 21, 2017

As underground features, impact on surface urban buildings would be low (since landuse=residential can hide them.
The point is to show them when noting else can be seen.

I never tag for renderer, and waterway=drain is intended to include this high flow feature into the waterway topological graph. A whole river is diverted inside it, then if the diverted river is rendered, we must render the tunnel since pretty all water goes inside it.

It's a two component data model :

  • waterway for water flowing system, and drain is the most valid value for it
  • man_made pipeline to let know it's a man_made structure designed to carry fluids.
  • tunnel culvert can be a third component for the design of the man made infrastructure but doesn't prevent to use man_made=pipeline

gustavecha commented Aug 21, 2017

As underground features, impact on surface urban buildings would be low (since landuse=residential can hide them.
The point is to show them when noting else can be seen.

I never tag for renderer, and waterway=drain is intended to include this high flow feature into the waterway topological graph. A whole river is diverted inside it, then if the diverted river is rendered, we must render the tunnel since pretty all water goes inside it.

It's a two component data model :

  • waterway for water flowing system, and drain is the most valid value for it
  • man_made pipeline to let know it's a man_made structure designed to carry fluids.
  • tunnel culvert can be a third component for the design of the man made infrastructure but doesn't prevent to use man_made=pipeline
@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Aug 21, 2017

Collaborator

A whole river is diverted inside it

In that situations usually waterway=river is used

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Aug 21, 2017

A whole river is diverted inside it

In that situations usually waterway=river is used

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Aug 21, 2017

No because the natural river contnues to exist.
The point is to divert a major part of it (without remove it from the natural environment) to feed an hydraulic power plant.

Then, the river : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1067839
and the diversion, which is not a river : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333009

You may notice it miss a part of the path at the end : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333047 (and following)
There is a lack of waterway=* values to tag penstocks which are not drains. That's why there is only the pipeline component on those objects.

gustavecha commented Aug 21, 2017

No because the natural river contnues to exist.
The point is to divert a major part of it (without remove it from the natural environment) to feed an hydraulic power plant.

Then, the river : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1067839
and the diversion, which is not a river : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333009

You may notice it miss a part of the path at the end : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243333047 (and following)
There is a lack of waterway=* values to tag penstocks which are not drains. That's why there is only the pipeline component on those objects.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dieterdreist

dieterdreist Aug 22, 2017

dieterdreist commented Aug 22, 2017

@gustavecha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gustavecha

gustavecha Apr 18, 2018

A recent waterway tagging improvement add a nice tunnel=flooded value to map underground water conduits. As it covers many situations where tunnel=culvert wasn't suitable and make tunnel=yes less acceptable for waterways, this would make everyone happy regarding this issue.

tunnel=* should always refer to man made structure, then natural caves aren't in its scope

See #3179

gustavecha commented Apr 18, 2018

A recent waterway tagging improvement add a nice tunnel=flooded value to map underground water conduits. As it covers many situations where tunnel=culvert wasn't suitable and make tunnel=yes less acceptable for waterways, this would make everyone happy regarding this issue.

tunnel=* should always refer to man made structure, then natural caves aren't in its scope

See #3179

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment