Talk:Key:culvert

arch

Moved from Proposal talk:Culvert type to be continue here

See also Talk:Tag:culvert=arch

my proposal: culvert=arch (similar to bridge:structure=arch) --HeiKue (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @HeiKue:, how would you distinguish culvert=half_pipe from your proposed culvert=arch? They look very similar to me --Kylenz 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kylenz:, it's also OK for me to add oval and arch to the culvert=half_pipe definition. At the moment it states only semicircle.

What is the Tag_status of culvert=half_pipe?

I'm currently working on the historical wikipedia:Ludwig Canal. Here are pictures of it's oval/arch culverts: wikipedia:de:Benutzer:Derzno/Ludwigskanal#Durchlass --HeiKue (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

culvert=half_pipe is just proposed, and your suggestion is the first one for this 3-year-old proposal :) half_pipe is only used 1 time, but arch is used 11 times. So maybe we should just replace half_pipe in arch the proposal? I don't have a strong opinion about what the best name is --Kylenz 10:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not a hydraulic engineering expert and so I googled for culvert shapes. half pipe seems to be a unusual type/wording. arch is usual and would be the better term.

How to refresh this proposal? Were there discussions elsewhere (forum)? --HeiKue (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've updated the proposal to use arch instead of half_pipe. The forum didn't exist in 2021, I'll make a post now. It seems like I forgot to send this proposal to the old mailing list, which is probably why no one commented until today... --Kylenz 11:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For now I'll use arch to continue my ongoing edits, but it's no problem to change them to a new system according results of Not only culverts discussion below --HeiKue (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not only culverts

Moved from Proposal talk:Culvert type to continue here

Hello I support any initiative to describe structures of tunnels and culverts. We need better ontology to do so. However here, proposed structures aren't specific to culverts, they are independently suitable for tunnel=flooded as well. This we had better to choose a more general key to state the shape of any duct, not only culverts hadn't we? Fanfouer (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, do think something like tunnel:structure=* would be better? It's tricky because people have already started using culvert=* quite a lot --Kylenz 11:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good approach! I also suggest to use subkey :structure --HeiKue (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not tunnel:structure=* indeed. structure=* is a bit too general and 3 000 uses won't prevent to refine culvert=* which would be suitable for an actual usage dedicated to culverts Fanfouer (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

tunnel:structure=* sounds good and is similar to bridge:structure=*. It's already in use, but with smaller quantities and maybe other meaning: tunnel:structure=*. But "(cross-sectional) shape" (tunnel:shape=*) seems to be the correct technical term. --HeiKue (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

just found and in use: tunnel:profile=* tunnel:profile=*. (edit:)

tunnel:profile=round

		$1%
		$1%
		$1%
		$1%

More details at taginfo

More details at taginfo

culvert=pipe

		$1%
		$1%
		$1%
		$1%

More details at taginfo

More details at taginfo

So we might have redundancy... --HeiKue (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

oval culvert

Moved from Proposal talk:Culvert type to continue here

Hello @Kylenz: @Fanfouer:,
Proposal: culvert=oval
Example: --HeiKue (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

culvert=elliptical could be better --HeiKue (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Tunnel

Should one also apply tunnel=yes? I guess so, but this should be mentioned on the wiki page. --Scai 13:41, 26 August 2010 (BST)

I don't think you should use both tags. That would be double (almost) the same information. --Cartinus 14:12, 26 August 2010 (BST)