"To me 'tunnel=flooded' means that is cannot really be used for/by anything other than the fluid in it due to the very small amount of space left, if any. "
Yes, that is what I would have guessed, too. I would have guessed that a canal tunnel which is passable by boats would be tunnel=yes, whether or not there is a side-path. (This is the problem with proposals that introduce several new tags all at once. I would have been better to discuss tunnel=flooded separately, so that this problem would not have occured.) -- Joseph Eisenberg On 3/23/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23/3/20 9:08 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 19:09, François Lacombe >> <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com <mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Volker, >> ... >> Fully disposed to make any improvement to wiki according to those >> points. >> >> Thanks, Francois. >> >> There is possibly a language bias (error?) in the use of tunnel=flooded. >> I am not a native speaker, but "flooded" to me means at least "more >> water than normal", and from this discussion it seems that we are >> talking about the normal presence of water in these structures. > > > Normal? No I don't think so. Some 'tunnels may be designed only to carry > water and have no real room for anything else. I am thinking of hydo > schemes where tunnels are used > > To me 'tunnel=flooded' means that is cannot really be used for/by > anything other than the fluid in it due to the very small amount of > space left, if any. > > Humm ... a smaller description? '"tunnel=flooded' ... full or nearly > full of fluid so that the tunnel cannot be used for anything else' ??? > >> Tag use tunnel=flooded: 2 in the UK, >> >> Many, if not the majority of the UK Inland Waterways canals have no >> tow-path. >> > Then tunnel=flooded is more appropriate. >> No, definitely not. These tunnels are not "flooded" at all, the water >> level in them is carefully controlled >> (The original method of powering the boats in these canals were men >> laying on their back and "walking" with their feet upwards along the >> tunnel ceiling. The French canals, being constructed later, generally >> did have tow-paths also in the tunnels see for example the >> Tunnel_de_Mauvages >> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTunnel_de_Mauvages&psig=AOvVaw3UK-_RmcKBM_5fKTGMZyjW&ust=1584997257128000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA0QjhxqFwoTCOijlIn9rugCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAS>. >> >> I remember when I was a boy my father showed me the tractors pulling >> the ships through the old tunnel near Arzwiller in Alsace on the same >> canal) >> They are uniformly tagged (correctly) as waterway=canal and tunnel=yes. >> I mentioned them in the context that tunnel=yes does not imply a >> tow-path. >> >> I had glanced at yourHydropower water supplies proposal, but I think I >> failed to intervene on three specific points: >> >> 1. The first one are the inverted siphons (botte sifone >> <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botte_sifone>, pont-siphon >> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont-siphon>), which are >> gravity-pressurised always-water-filled sections of non-navigable >> canals. I usually map them as culverts, and i have just started to >> add the new tag culvert=inverted_siphon to the first three of them. >> 2. The second point is that the distinction between water-filled and >> part-filled water conducts is problematic: culverts that are >> frequently used to conduct free-flowing drains, ditches, >> irrigation canals, freshwater canals under roads can be anything >> from empry to fully filled (and slightly pressurised) depending on >> precipitations. >> 3. waterway=pressurised cannot be used together with waterway=canal >> for the inverted-siphon situation >> >> Volker >> > > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
