Proposal talk:Storage tank

Introduction

Basicaly the proposition aims at having a more generic feature - storage tank - instead of multiple specific ones. Describing the fonction/content of the feature with additionnal tags (as already proposed in each specific ones), we dont need to create new features type each time a new content is mapped. Your comments/propositions:

Comments

Good idea! Right now there's only "gasometer".

Please, note that many of them are big enough, and it's better to draw them in vector, rather than as an icon. Mapnik doesn't draw their contours as of now.

gaz vs. gas

gaz is not the correct english word. I changed it to gas in the definition. --Dancingman 19:47, 5th Jan. 2012

• content = water|gas|fuel|oil|manure|crop|cement|etc.

content vs contents.

Double definition:

man_made=storage_tank used with content=

Secondary tagging

• contents = water|gaz|fuel|oil|manure|crop|cement|etc.

T99 18:46, 24 August 2011 (BST): The plural contents is grammatically correct in this context. I changed "content" to "contents" in the definition.

Dancingman 19:47, 5th Jan 2012: imho content is as correct as contents but more often used as i saw in taginfo (~22.000 vs. 6.600). And content is more often used in combination with man_made=storage_tank. I changed it again to "content" and renamed "gaz" to "gas"

Coordination of tags

It is a very good initiative to make a general tag that can be used even for storage_tanks that fall in between the definitons of the more specialized tags. This will influence the discussion on man_made=gasometer man_made=water_tower and man_made=silo. I think that the use of a common icon is the best part of the proposal, this should be used for all cylindrical upright storage_tanks. /Johan Jönsson 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As the author of man_made=silo, I would like to have the three distinguished at a level above listing the content. Siloes and tanks for liquids are very often easy to distinguish, as siloes have to withstand less pressure and may even be made of non-insulating materials (like wood). How about man_made=storage_container, storage=silo, content=grit or man_made=storage_container, storage=tank, content=butane? Container rather than storage tank, which is normally used for liquids or compressed gases, so siloes would not fit that definition. This would allow to use different inner circles dependent on the type of container, as outlined in the proposal. I wouldn't reserve this definition for cylindrical structures, as siloes are often not cylindrical. --Ipofanes 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative, using key:building

An even more general way of tagging could be by using the building-key and the scheme from Proposed_features/Building_attributes.

building=yes
building:use=storage
building:type=gasometer/water_tower/silo/storage_tank

This doesn´t solve much, there is still a need to generalize betwenn all kinds of building:types to be able to use the same nifty icon.

One can argue that it is less of a building and more like a structure, a man_made structure. /Johan Jönsson 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

building=gasometer/water_tower/storage_tank means that this is building=yes and storage. why write three tags, if all information comes from one --dr&mx 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative, using man_made=tower

I read a good comment on Talk:Tag:man_made=water_tower DanHomerick writes "While water_towers are distinctive elements of the skyline, water_tanks are normally hidden from view. For most maps, a water_tower should be rendered, whereas water_tanks should probably not."

There is a point in distinguishing between high rising landmarks and low storage tanks. But also storage_tanks standing next to the road or the large areas of big cylindrical tanks on refineries is useful for orientation and that cylindrical icon suit them well.

Is it right to have the same icon for them, though?

For the High rise storage_tanks I could think of an alternative tagging based on the talk on Proposed features/Tag:man made=tower:

man_made=tower 
tower:use=storage
tower:type=gasometer/water_tower/silo/storage_tank

/Johan Jönsson 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a gasometer or a silo or a storage tank are well described as "towers". Also note that tower:type is usually for the purpose of the tower (e.g. defensive or communication), while a silo for instance can be used for a lot of different purposes, from food storage to construction industry. --Dieterdreist (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not always a tower or holding water

Initially I listed it for CanVec as man_made=storage; building=liquid_storage_tank, however, listing it as man_made=storage_tank; content=water is a good idea. I thought perhaps it should be just man_made=water_tower since the definition is the same would be good. However, since the content is "unknown" and might not actually be a tower (as in the case of a now height storage tank), creating a new tag man_made=storage_tank with this proposed render would be a better option, as it differenciates from man_made=water_tower and man_made=tower. --acrosscanadatrails 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a tank is not always a tower. Some tanks are horizontal cylinders. Some are cylinders with a vertical axis but a much greater width than height. Some are spherical. Some are partly underground. --T99 18:51, 24 August 2011 (BST)

Tank not for solid substances, better use silo

I recommend not to use this tag for solid substances. Tank refers to liquids and gases. (Solid) bulk material is stored in silos. There is already a proposal: Proposed_features/Silo -- Dieterdreist 20:20, 15 September 2010 (BST)

If siloes are to be included (which is one purpose of this suggestion), use a more generic term like storage_container or the like. --Ipofanes 11:42, 24 September 2010 (BST)

It doesn't seem as if this opinion had gained a majority, there are still 25.000 of the well introduced and documented man_made=silo in the db. --Dieterdreist (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

tank vs storage tank

IMO man_made=tank is just as good, or maybe even slightly better than man_made=storage_tank. It shouldn't be necessary for us (the mappers) to find out whether a tank is used for storage, as a line buffer, or are unused. The main purpose is to map the tanks, and further information, such as usage of the tank, and products can be additionally tagged. In most cases it is unknown to us if the tank is used for storage (most common) or as buffer (uncommon). --Skippern 23:45, 15 September 2010 (BST)

I agree with this point. Tank as generic tag, and content, type, etc. as subtags --Javiersanp 10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. man_made=tank is a simpler shorter tag conveying much the same meaning. -- Harry Wood 10:19, 25 May 2011 (BST)

I agree as well. The tank being there is what is showing up on the map, what function it serves is irrelevant to it being there, Its contents may be unknown unless the operator is know for its contents, eg a water authority or a petrol company. Tanks can also be horizontal as well as vertical, so then tank=vertical/horizontal and tank:contents= etc as mentioned in the proposal. Despite the physical orientation of the tank, tanks should be rendered with the same vertical tank icon. Rather than changing size for different materials, change the color. Water=blue, oil=black, gas/petrol=orange, and grey=unknown that way a larger tank can have a larger size. I'm not sure if an underground tank should be mapped, but if it is, it one could use the existing level=-1 tag. It would seem redundant to map the underground tanks at a petrol station for instance. Rjhawkin 03:45, 31 July 2011 (BST)

I second this comment. Storage can be stated with usage=storage Fanfouer (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not building=storage_tank?

What is the point of making it harder to tag, render and process? Bulwersator (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Because silo, water_tower, gasometer and reservoir_covered are also man_made and a storage tank is listed as under nonbuilding structures in Wikipedia.--Jojo4u (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is this restricted to CYLINDRICAL?

There are also other shapes of storage tanks, e.g. spherical ones or those with elliptical cross-section. Please note that cylindrical tanks are usually either horizontally (lying) or vertically (standing) mounted, this could maybe be expressed with a subtag? --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is moot now, the feature page does not restrict the shape.--Jojo4u (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Content vs substance

Work done so far here is appreciable and useful thank you
Why shouldn't we use substance=* instead of content=*? Fanfouer (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Unresolved Issue after years . . .

"man_made=storage_tank" is still not rendered at all in carto. What might be the holdup?

thanks Badenk (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Badenk: See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank that mentions that it IS rendered and documents icon. Certain specific one may be not rendered due to conflict with other nearby features, broken data or not yet updated tiles - but without link to specific object guessing is not possible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

hi Mateusz:

I sense that there are some communication and cultural gaps. In the English language, a "storage_tank" is usually a sealed cylindrical or spherical (often metal) tank meant to store fluids. There is no normal access for humans. Conversely, a "building" is usually a rectangular structure designed for human occupancy and has doorways and often windows. The two above noted terms are distinct and different.

There might be some unintended confusion between the terms "building" and "structure". A "structure" is a generic term for any man made static object, and a "building" is a specific type of "structure", as described above. A "storage_tank" would be a "structure", as also are statues, bridges and dams. None are "buildings".

Ideally, as described in "man_made=storage_tank", carto should render a two dimensional object similarly to how "building" is rendered. Other map renderers draw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank in two dimensions with different colours than "building". However, carto only places an indecipherable icon as you noted. This is clearly insufficient. Carto only renders realistic "man_made=storage_tank" with the improper "building" tag added. You can easily make an OSM "man_made=storage_tank" object to test this.

I have come across many instances of "man_made=storage_tank" from across the last decade not rendered due to this deficiency,

eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-4.04160/39.64424

thanks, Baden Badenk (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)