Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On May 30, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> How are the small drainage/irrigation channels tagged currently in Japan?
> 
> Are most tagged as waterway=drain, waterway=canal or waterway=ditch?


they are used for different purposes. based on purpose and construction.  I use 
all three when mapping. (along with many many weirs &  sluice_gates).  



people tag them as streams, drains, and ditches. many streams are re-routed 
into new (straight) channelized systems, removing them from the old path. 

aqueducts are usually tagged as waterway=canal canal=irrigation. 

Here is a drain that pulls off of a stream and supplies water to some rice 
fields and then dumps back into the river less than 1 KM downstream. 

you can see how stuff is commonly tagged. I assume there are some errors. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/621898960#map=15/36.3124/139.3520 


most rice fields are divided into long rectangles, and nominally are separated 
alternately by access road (alley) and a ditch. 

here is a picture of the 30-40cm drains that run along most roads to supply and 
collect water for the fields. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091110715/in/album-72157638113676925/ 




These are almost all prefabricated concrete, from 1m2 to 30cm2. 

the drains have small little plastic doors (metal wood, or a plastic soda 
bottle jammed in there) that feed fields directly or feed the old ditch system 
(1m- 50cm ditches) 


here is a large ditch that enters from the right, goes in a culvert under the 
road and into a concrete distribution box with a wooden weir board inside to 
control the water height.

 The yellow bag is controlling the flow from the box into that field set. It 
then continues on as a ditch towards camera. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091115355/in/album-72157638113676925/ 



the lower fields then feed their water back into the ditches and drains and the 
drains continue on to the next set and eventually back to the source they were 
pulled out of (from the weir) 

it might seem unnecessary to have them re-connect to the river further 
downstream (often with a sluice gate through a levee), but this system absorbs 
all of the rain and acts as a flooding buffer, and has to empty back out into 
the river eventually. 

they can divert some water into holding ponds for the three weeks in summer 
when it is really hot and doesn't rain. 

 here is a small one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243411132 
 

These same drains, in suburban areas, pass through neighborhoods to go from 
field to field. 

aqueducts move water from river to river to keep the supply equalized or to 
supply water treatment plants. 

One aqaduct pulls water from a giant river about 20KM from my house to a 
holding lake just above my house. it then feeds water into this stream to take 
care of farmers down stream. 

 here is quick look at one of these aqueducts (it goes above and underground). 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3123867846 
 node where disappears 
underground in the below pictures. 
 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/shsyc511/9073548.html 




here is the beginning to an (old) aquaduct near Nikko 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685540122 



here is an aquaduct that goes under a huge river in Nagano. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684097406 

it has bridges over rivers and water control gates and flow control waterways 
it crosses.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401319150 

it feeds agricultural water to Wasabi farms, which need very clean and 
controlled water. 
it grows in ditches that feed water into the riverbed gravel it grows in. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684097406 
 


Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On May 30, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> We have lots of these in Indonesia, in the rice-growing areas with
> irrigated fields, but most are more like deep ditches, dug directly
> into the ground and unlined


I imagine ~100 years ago, it was just like that in Japan. you can find sections 
of that old ditch system still. There are pretty big ditches that still handle 
supply for a very large field set. 

Japan spent an insane amount of money to turn all their large & small ditches 
into interconnected concrete drains, added sluice gates & weirs to all the 
streams, built levees around all the rivers, and dug aqueducts to balance the 
river flows (for irrigation). I have cycled ~600Km of riverbanks and rice 
fields, from very remote areas down into major cities. It doesn’t really vary - 
it is all built to the same standard. They are widening the levees in my area 
after a breach elsewhere in 2015. they are always working on the water 
management system.

Most farming access roads were paved and now maintained as public roads that 
would otherwise be mud or gravel tracks in the rest of Asia. there are a lot of 
tracks, but a lot of “alleys” as well. this is another side-effect of Japan 
having spent so much money to pave and upgrade the quality of so many roads in 
rural areas. (rather than being merely grade 1 or 2 tracks).

I grew up in Southern California, and most roads have little-to-no drainage of 
any kind - rain is so uncommon. ditches, drains, and other water management 
features are sparse. The freeways flood in a rainstorm. living in 
rural/suburban Japan, I marvel at the drainage system they built for even the 
smallest set of fields, and the culverts under almost every single road 
intersection in Japan, no matter how small and remote. This irrigation/rain 
management system is as pervasive as the water/sewer/power/telecom services - 
perhaps more so.

This requires expanded levels of tagging, similar to how we have for roads, 
because the scale and complexity of the system (that is mappable from imagery) 
is far greater than what you would find elsewhere.  

This means there is room for aquaducts, drains and ditches, even if it might 
seem unnecessarily detailed. 



I will try to take some pictures this weekend of different irrigation features 
to help define the tagging. 


Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Inland customs offices

[Jan S]

Hey everyone,

I've just noticed that the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:government%3Dcustoms defines a
customs building as "A structure near or at an international boundary where
travelers and vehicles crossing the border are inspected."

Customs controls however take place inland, also, e.g. at river ports or in
bigger commercial areas. There, lorries or containes pass customs control
and are then sealed by the customs officials and may thus pass a border
without further inspection of the content.

I propose that inland customs facilities be tagged as government=customs,
too, and the wiki be modified accordingly.

Best,
Jan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That makes sense to me.

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 6:35 PM Jan S  wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> I've just noticed that the wiki at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:government%3Dcustoms defines a
> customs building as "A structure near or at an international boundary where
> travelers and vehicles crossing the border are inspected."
>
> Customs controls however take place inland, also, e.g. at river ports or
> in bigger commercial areas. There, lorries or containes pass customs
> control and are then sealed by the customs officials and may thus pass a
> border without further inspection of the content.
>
> I propose that inland customs facilities be tagged as government=customs,
> too, and the wiki be modified accordingly.
>
> Best,
> Jan
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[François Lacombe]

Le jeu. 30 mai 2019 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> I don't think "aqueduct" would work, since it isn't above ground level:
>
> https://assets.weforum.org/editor/skgMAyNg8Xu_anqQbTcTo87HkYgWEiN0eF-5dlsLhCo.jpg


Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level?
Major aqueducts feeding Paris in drinkable water are underground, so do NYC
ones.


> It looks like waterway=aqueduct could be used for waterways that are
> generally built with an above-ground structure on one or both sides,
>

As John said, it is confusing structure and purpose.
I don't see why waterway=* have to reflect the structure it is runing in.
I would add waterway=pressurised isn't necessarily for the structure (it
can involve both tunnel, pipeline and caves) but for the pressure of the
water.


> Most modern aqueducts used to supply water to cities in developed
> countries are constructed from pipelines now,


No, there are tunnels too
It's time to pay tribute to John McClane :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlMe4kU9TA

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 May 2019, 15:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level?
>
Maybe because one of main meanings of this word is
"bridge to convey water over an obstacle, such as a ravine or valley"?

I was initially really confused by usage of aqueduct not referring to
something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aqueduct_of_Segovia_08.jpg 

(despite that even Roman aqueducts were mostly underground)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 30. Mai 2019 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 30 May 2019, 15:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level?
>
> Maybe because one of main meanings of this word is
> "bridge to convey water over an obstacle, such as a ravine or valley"?
>


the meaning of the term "aqueduct" is "leading water". Usually bridges are
only constructed where they are needed, while an aqueduct will be
continuous from its start to the endpoint, not just the bridges where
valleys have to be crossed.

As far as I have seen the term is used for both, pressurized water conduits
(tubes) and freeflowing, which makes it less suitable for us.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

[Anton Klim]

It seems like there was some cross copying on the wiki. 
There is another, older key, amenity=customs, which is actually used at border 
crossings (from what I’ve seen) to denote customs control. 
I am not sure why the amenity tag was deprecated (it also seems to be used more 
often than the office tag). A customs office is not necessarily a place where 
such control can be carried out and surely should be distinguished?


Ant

> 30 мая 2019 г., в 10:55, Joseph Eisenberg  
> написал(а):
> 
> That makes sense to me.
> 
>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 6:35 PM Jan S  wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>> 
>> I've just noticed that the wiki at 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:government%3Dcustoms defines a 
>> customs building as "A structure near or at an international boundary where 
>> travelers and vehicles crossing the border are inspected."
>> 
>> Customs controls however take place inland, also, e.g. at river ports or in 
>> bigger commercial areas. There, lorries or containes pass customs control 
>> and are then sealed by the customs officials and may thus pass a border 
>> without further inspection of the content.
>> 
>> I propose that inland customs facilities be tagged as government=customs, 
>> too, and the wiki be modified accordingly.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Jan
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 21:19, Anton Klim  wrote:

> It seems like there was some cross copying on the wiki.
> There is another, older key, amenity=customs, which is actually used at
> border crossings (from what I’ve seen) to denote customs control.
> I am not sure why the amenity tag was deprecated (it also seems to be used
> more often than the office tag). A customs office is not necessarily a
> place where such control can be carried out and surely should be
> distinguished?
>

Amenity:  n.

   1. Pleasantness.
   2. A thing or circumstance that is welcome and makes life a little
   easier.
   3.  Convenience.
   4.  A unit pertaining to the infrastructure of a community.

It you squint really hard, you can maybe see number 4 applying.  But the
fact that amenity=*
is usually applied in the context of number 2 or 3 makes a customs office a
bad fit.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On May 30, 2019, at 11:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> Am Do., 30. Mai 2019 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny 
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:
> 30 May 2019, 15:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
> :
> Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level?
> Maybe because one of main meanings of this word is
> "bridge to convey water over an obstacle, such as a ravine or valley"?
> 
> 
> the meaning of the term "aqueduct" is "leading water". Usually bridges are 
> only constructed where they are needed,

yep.

I think this is truly a matter of what you are familiar with first. 

Growing up in California, the only usage of the word aqueduct I ever heard 
referred to the Califorina aquaduct from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and it 
is a giant trench dug in the ground and (now) lined with concrete. it obviously 
has other features (pumps and pipes to go over the mountains), but the iconic 
images of it everyone thinks of is the water in the trench next to interstate. 
5. califorina has 3 major aqueduct systems, all to move water to Southern 
California. 

I learned about all the roman aqueducts and so forth much much later on TV, and 
they always showed the bridges and the tunnels to make some fountain work in 
Rome. 

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/aqueducts-move-water-past-and-today?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
 


here, the USGS shows a section of the Califorina aqueduct and a picture of an 
old Roman aqueduct (bridge), showing how some people equate any structure for 
conveying a supply of water from one area to another for the purpose of using / 
drinking the water as “an aqueduct” 

This is teaching materials for classrooms. 

the aqueducts I map in Japan usually have long at-grade open-air sections, pipe 
or open-top bridges, and lots of tunnels - similar to a "roman aqueduct” as I 
understand them. 


Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The usage of the word "aqueduct" in American English is broader than
the meaning of the word in British English.

Cambridge dictionaries defines the noun as "a structure for carrying
water across land, especially one like a high bridge with many arches
that carries pipes or a canal across a valley" -
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aqueduct

Oxford dictionaries: Noun "1. An artificial channel for conveying
water, typically in the form of a bridge across a valley or other
gap."
"2. A small duct in the body containing fluid."

But in the USA the word is alway used for long canals and tunnels
designed to carry water to a city or for irrigation:
Merriam-Webster (one of the better-researched American English dictionaries):
1 a: a conduit for water
especially : one for carrying a large quantity of flowing water
b : a structure for conveying a canal over a river or hollow
2 : a canal or passage in a part or organ
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aqueduct

So in US and British English it's possible to use "aqueduct" to
describe a bridge that carries a canal or other artificial waterway
over a river or road. This is already a tag: bridge=aqueduct.

In this case "aque-duct" is similar to "via-duct", but carrying water
rather than a road:
Merriam-Webster: "a long elevated roadway usually consisting of a
series of short spans supported on arches, piers, or columns"
Cambridge: "a long, high bridge, usually held up by many arches, that
carries a railway or a road over a valley:"
Oxford: "A long bridge-like structure, typically a series of arches,
carrying a road or railway across a valley or other low ground."

Is there a better word than "aqueduct" that could be used to tag an
artificial waterway that transports useful water from one place to
another for irrigation, drinking water, or industrial usage, but is
not constructed like a canal or pipeline?

I still feel uncomfortable using the word "canal" for small waterways:
the basic meaning of the word "canal" seems to imply a navigable
waterway, just as a "river" is wide enough for a small boat, in
contrast with a stream, but perhaps this is specific to my dialect?

Can anyone show an example of an English waterway that is called a
"canal" locally but is less than 2 meters wide, or 1 meter wide?

On 5/31/19, John Willis via Tagging  wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 2019, at 11:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am Do., 30. Mai 2019 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny
>> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:
>> 30 May 2019, 15:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com
>> :
>> Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level?
>> Maybe because one of main meanings of this word is
>> "bridge to convey water over an obstacle, such as a ravine or valley"?
>>
>>
>> the meaning of the term "aqueduct" is "leading water". Usually bridges are
>> only constructed where they are needed,
>
> yep.
>
> I think this is truly a matter of what you are familiar with first.
>
> Growing up in California, the only usage of the word aqueduct I ever heard
> referred to the Califorina aquaduct from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and
> it is a giant trench dug in the ground and (now) lined with concrete. it
> obviously has other features (pumps and pipes to go over the mountains), but
> the iconic images of it everyone thinks of is the water in the trench next
> to interstate. 5. califorina has 3 major aqueduct systems, all to move water
> to Southern California.
>
> I learned about all the roman aqueducts and so forth much much later on TV,
> and they always showed the bridges and the tunnels to make some fountain
> work in Rome.
>
> https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/aqueducts-move-water-past-and-today?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
> 
>
> here, the USGS shows a section of the Califorina aqueduct and a picture of
> an old Roman aqueduct (bridge), showing how some people equate any structure
> for conveying a supply of water from one area to another for the purpose of
> using / drinking the water as “an aqueduct”
>
> This is teaching materials for classrooms.
>
> the aqueducts I map in Japan usually have long at-grade open-air sections,
> pipe or open-top bridges, and lots of tunnels - similar to a "roman
> aqueduct” as I understand them.
>
>
> Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:08 PM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> The usage of the word "aqueduct" in American English is broader than
> the meaning of the word in British English.

Perhaps, but note that the Roman aqueducts were long projects of
tunnels, covered ditches, and inverted syphons as well as bridges.
Would British English not call the Aqua Anio Vetus, Aqua Anio Novus,
Aqua Claudia or Aqua Marcia 'aqueducts'?  They are in keeping with the
Cambridge definition:

> Cambridge dictionaries defines the noun as "a structure for carrying
> water across land, especially one like a high bridge with many arches
> that carries pipes or a canal across a valley" -
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aqueduct

except for the 'especially' clause, which describes an indicative
condition, not a necessary one.

> But in the USA the word is always used for long canals and tunnels
> designed to carry water to a city or for irrigation:
> Merriam-Webster (one of the better-researched American English dictionaries):
> 1 a: a conduit for water
> especially : one for carrying a large quantity of flowing water
> b : a structure for conveying a canal over a river or hollow

That's not true.  The Rexford Aqueduct existed to carry the Erie Canal
across the Mohawk River for transportation, not to move water, but to
move boats; likewise, the Roebling Aqueduct carried canal boats on the
Delaware & Hudson Canal across the Delaware River. The New York City
aqueduct system uses not only long tunnels, but also exploits natural
watercourses: a good part of its Schoharie Aqueduct is, for instance,
an artificial raising of the water flow in the Esopus Creek - the long
tunnel from the Schoharie Reservoir discharges into the Shandaken
Outlet, and the natural course of the Esopus carries it to the Ashokan
Reservoir.

The only necessary condition is: a conduit for water - although
ordinarily the quantity will be large.

> Is there a better word than "aqueduct" that could be used to tag an
> artificial waterway that transports useful water from one place to
> another for irrigation, drinking water, or industrial usage, but is
> not constructed like a canal or pipeline?

> I still feel uncomfortable using the word "canal" for small waterways:
> the basic meaning of the word "canal" seems to imply a navigable
> waterway, just as a "river" is wide enough for a small boat, in
> contrast with a stream, but perhaps this is specific to my dialect?

Some of the Salt River Project canals in Arizona, which are built to
carry irrigation water, are quite tiny indeed - surely not navigable.

Where I am, the use of "river" versus other names varies all over the
place. The Bronx River is a shallow and sluggish creek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_River#/media/File:Bronx_River_Bronxville_jeh.JPG.
The Schoharie Creek is a substantial river
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/519eeb34-6bfa-4ca7-92a4-2cc9a4f7e862.jpeg.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I've updated the language on the waterway=pressurised page to use
standard English syntax, and to clarify that these are artificial
tunnels or pipelines, in the short description.

This was already somewhat clear from the full description, and from
the proposal where waterway=pressurised was described as "tag [for]
any pipe flow feature like water tunnels, penstocks and siphons where
water flows without any air. "

New short description:

"An artificial tunnel or pipeline where water flows in a closed space
without air"

New long description:

"This key is intended to map artificial conduits where water is found
pipe flowing in a closed space without air. As water is filling all
space available in the conduit, it applies a positive static pressure
on the conduit walls.

"The conduit can be either a pipeline or a tunnel. This is specified
by adding man_made=pipeline or tunnel=* to the way tagged
waterway=pressurised."

"A "pipe flow regime" is one of the three main flow regimes of liquid
water. This regime is obtained by design when the intake of the
conduit is built below the lowest water level the source can reach.
This is the only use case of waterway=pressurised.""

I removed the reference to natural caves, because it conflicted with
the last paragraph which says "This regime is obtained by design when
the intake of the conduit is built below the lowest water level the
source can reach" - clearly natural caves are not designed or built in
the usual sense.

The original proposal page had a brief mention of caves but said -
confusingly - that this usage was "out of scope" of the proposal: "it
may be useful for speleologists and natural underground rivers/siphons
out of this proposal scope."

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging