Talk:Tag:bridge=aqueduct

The picture in the Infobox looks historical. If there is also Tag:historic=aqueduct we should change that. And what about the paragraph historic=bridge. It must then also be adjusted. --geozeisig (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

IMHO It does not matter. As stated on the page historic=aqueduct - aqueducts consist of many parts, not all of them are bridges, there could be tunnels, ditches, ...

So historic=aqueduct goes on anything which has to do with aqueduct and bridge=aqueduct is applied additionaly on the bridge part.

What about historic=bridge? There is no such page. Chrabros (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Then historic=aqueduct is not used alternatively so is a property. Then it should be better at Additional tags listed.

historic=bridge we can also describe.--geozeisig (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I see it in the oposite. For me it seems that bridge=aqueduct is a property of a way. But thinking about it more it is confusing.

historic=bridge - Yes, we can! ;-)

Chrabros (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Pipeline bridge / covered aqueduct

Can the water be covered, or must it be open?

What about a bridge that is a pipeline?

That would be a covered aqueduct. Jidanni (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to use bridge=aqueduct with pipeline bridges. They can be tagged bridge=yes, because a water pipeline and an oil pipeline look identical on the outside. The tag bridge=aqueduct is used for waterways like canals. You can use covered=yes if it has a roof, such as some irrigation and drinking water aqueducts. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well all that is confusing plain bridges with Roman (uncovered) aqueducts (example, but not tagged as an aqueduct as now no water) with romantic covered bridges. It would seem best to do bridge=pipeline, at least for the pipeline I mentioned in photo link. Jidanni (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Areas of waterway as aquaduct?

Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/257665671 as an example, here a waterway area (canal) goes over the top of another another waterway area (river). The bridge=aqueduct page says that it can't be used with areas, however here it seems to make sense, as the waterway area is describing the aquaduct more precisely than the waterway line alone. If not, is there a better way to record this? (JOSM currently warns of a waterway overlapping a waterway as part of validation)