Proposal talk:Outlets proposal

What about oneway flow protection?

Resolved: One way flow protection is covered with valve=check help. Fanfouer (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Some places have automatic cover that allows flow only in one direction. How it would be tagged?

Is it covered by "A valve, including sluice gates, control the flow of a pipe, tunnel or canal outlet "? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What's an "automatic cover"? Is is not a non-return valve? ---- Kovposch (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, non-return valve (placed on outlets of rain water into river) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's good points that need a little bit thinking. I plan to add a value for drain outlet protected from flood with movable doors, floating over outgoing upstream fluid and closing against downstream flood streams. It's not certain they're called valves and it could encompass safety check valves installed in the middle of pressurised pipelines to release fluid upon abnormal high pressure. Best solution remains to be defined, wait for it Fanfouer (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fanfouer: hmm, the picture you shared their is simply on a open-atmosphere drain. True, the function of a pressure release valve and (what appears to be in the picture) a spring-activated release valve are very similar, but one is for a pressurized line and the other is not. My thought process didn't lead me anywhere.

Another kind of back flow prevention devices is the RPZ (reduced pressure zone) back flow preventer (https://www.pmengineer.com/articles/86009-how-the-rp-enhances-backflow-prevention and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_pressure_zone_device).

One useful thought I have is that maybe what you are trying to describe is simply the category of back flow preventers. That would do a good job of covering check valves, various pressurized line valves and also open-to-atmosphere pipelines that prevent the back flow of flood waters. I don't know how any of these devices could provide a filtering function as well, but I'm sure mechanically there might be a way. --IanVG (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)That last point also isn't that important for our discussion.

Okay, so [[valves]] encompass back flow prevention devices, and back flow prevention devices encompass check valves. So depending on the specificity we want to achieve, the current outlet=valve value may be satisfactory, and maybe some namespaces or further valve=* tagging additions would be appropriate.

For example one way to tag a check valve that is somehow an outlet (which doesn't seem likely, but correct me if I am wrong) could be tagged as outlet=valve, valve=backflow_preventer, backflow_preventer=check_valve OR as outlet=valve, valve=check_valve OR as outlet=valve valve:direction=one_way (or something).

I do think these kinds of conversations are interesting because it makes us think about the proper size of tagging families. If there were only one kind of backflow preventer (let's say just the check valve) there would not be a point to have the backflow_preventer=* key. But how many instances of a particular family justify the use of that family; 2? 3? 10?

Probably (as for most things) there is no easy answer for this question. Just something to think about as we draft this proposal. --IanVG (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's right the chosen picture wasn't appropriate and changed it. I've also added valve=check to initiate mapping of check valves in the existing valves tagging framework, to begin with particular outlets context.

However, that would require another proposal to introduce backflow and pressure reduction devices (why not with the help of proposed valve=check) installed on plain pipelines sections.

I think current adds solve the issue on outlets and we'll wait for further work to begin on backflow protection to get back at the valid points you've made @IanVG:? Fanfouer (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Outfall seems a more precise (and widely used) technical term

Resolved: Proper references to outfalls added. This proposal won't redefine this value

Recently User:Russss pointed out to me a detailed (non-open) map of hydrography infrastructure held by the English Environment Agency. This caused me to go and check, photograph & document a few local features. Notably these included outfalls of storm drains etc. I mapped a few & documented what I mapped at man_made=outfall. The EA map is very consistent in using outfall for tens of thousands of features. I would suggest that this is a better term than outlet which can have other broader meanings in the hydrological context. Either way my photographic examples may be useful. 10:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I read, "outfall" may include the section of pipe protruding into the water body (if not also the entire discharging pipe), not only the exit point. Furthermore, it can commonly be a series or even an array of discharge points (at least for wastewater). ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for pointing out man_made=outfall. Given problem is that outfall sounds to only cover sewage and water bodies while outlet=* is intended for a large variety of fluids including gases. I'm not sure that outfall is suitable for gases right? Fanfouer (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair point @Kovposch:, Fanfouer, either way, the man_made=outfall will need to be addressed by this proposal, as there will be overlap of tagging.
I think it would be okay to deprecate it in favor of outlet=*. However, I do think that the tagging page should mention the term and how it fits into our scheme.
Outfalls are a kind of outlet, that deals specifically with the discharge of wastewater (storm sewer system) into a natural body of water or into another kind of wastewater system. --IanVG (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Found a document on how best to map outfall from the NYC city gov't. I'll try and take a look later. How to Map Outfalls.--IanVG (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice find Ian thank you, I've added the link to See also section.

According to wikipedia documentation, I notice that outlets and outfalls intersect but don't overlap. It's possible to use man_made=outfall for open air canals or ditches while proposed outlet=* only regards nodes where a fluid goes out of a closed duct. Then I've added combinations on appropriate examples but this proposal isn't legit to review man_made=outfall. Fanfouer (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Generic tag name for specific feature

Resolved: fluid stands for both gases and liquids. This proposal is focused on liquids and proposed key could be extended to gases later

Currently the proposal states that this tag is intended only for outlets for fluids. IMHO this should either get a more specific name (water_outlet? fluids_outlet?) or be open for other kind of outlets like gas outlets (e.g. outlets for ventilation ducts) as well. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dieterdreist:, fluids here stands for both liquids and gases. Vent outlets, gas pipelines outlets will also be covered by this proposal. It is clearly stated that outlet=* is applicable whatever the substance going through it can be. Fanfouer (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've finally restricted this proposal to liquids as it would be difficult to cover all gases situations in this first batch. This could be addressed in a further document so inlet remains a valid term to be extended later. Fanfouer (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Examples of Non-Water/Liquid Outlets

@Fanfouer: I know you have mentioned that this tagging scheme covers all kinds of fluids. Would you happen to have any examples of outlets for non-water pipelines? At the moment, the proposal only covers water related kinds of infrastructure. I can take a look too if you'd like. --IanVG (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I found a domestic example (sorry it's an ad!) Natural Gas Quick Connect Fitting.--IanVG (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Another example example could be anything related to steam. Really I do now see the point in not restricting this proposal to 'wastewater.' I suppose, different categories of water networks that would be appropriate would be chilled water systems, condenser water systems, condensate drain water systems, steam systems, steam condensate water systems, hot water systems, domestic cold water systems as far as water systems go. Other systems may include refrigerants and petroleum based liquids. I bet in Europe there might be some hydrogen outlets that are found at specific kinds of commercial and domestic facilities as well. --IanVG (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's right I'll certainly complete them shortly. We must introduce kind of relevancy concept as to not add outlet=* on every faucet or fountain, which would be counter productive.

Regarding ventilation outlets, outlet=* will be relevant and I'm currently gathering pictures to illustrate valid situations Fanfouer (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to your relevancy concept! I think that's a great idea. And yes, it would be good to limit these tags to 'substantial' pieces of infrastructure that are operated independently from the public (maybe! not sure yet to be honest). So let's say that an outlet could be mapped if it is clearly observable by foot-survey. In that case, a drinking fountain that is in the middle of a park has features, that although are similar to outlets (release water, essentially the button or foot pedal being a kind of valve), is functionally different in that it serves the need of an individual for only the time the individual activates the service.
Another common feature in a park is a regular large fountain (operates all the time, or very often). Although this kind of fountain also is a point where water is released, it is significantly different in that the fountain likely reuses the water it ejects (although there is likely significant make-up).
So at least two rules gathered from this exercise are:
#1 An outlet must not be operable by an unassociated person (this would exclude watering fountains, sinks, toilets, showers, and other features of this kind).
#2 An outlet must release the fluid in a single direction (no reuse).

That's very valuable points @IanVG:. We could also add that an outlet is not supposed to be plugged further (and only release the fluid like you said). Then most of faucet, some fountains, pipe sockets and so one shouldn't get outlet=* on them and our problem is solved, aren't you? Fanfouer (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)