Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

wyo · 2018-10-27 19:37:32

Aqueducts are rather easily recognized as a bridge where water flows across. In some cases these objects are even named something like "...Akwadukt" or "Akwadukt...". So there shouldn't be any question how they are mapped.

Aqueducts are a rather important information on waterways and have to be shown on the map. Aqueducts are definitiv an important information for tourists regardless if they travel by bicycle, car or boat. And knowing that an aqueduct is ahead is informative even for drivers on highways.

Aqueducts are all over the world the same, simply transporting some water above some air and something else which clearly means a bridge. This is no different in Nederlands. Therefore aqueducts should be tagged "bridge=aqueduct" and "bridge_name="..." on the waterway as everywhere on the world.

Water which flows goes rather seldom upwards, so aqueducts should be normally tagged "layer=0" (or no layer which implies zero) yet it's not wrong to tag them "layer=1" or higher if necessary. Ways below should be tagged with negative layers.

Usually the water of a waterway is much wider than the waterway itself and bridges aren't. This can be helped by a "wide=..." tag on the aqueduct. A more complex solution is to map a "man_made=bridge" according to the size of the aqueduct. With this renderer might someday render aqueducts correctly.

Now what with the under passing ways. Even in Nederlands nobody questions how waterways below an aqueduct are tagged, simply as normal waterways. So what is different with other ways, e.g. highways? Nothing is different, a way is always a way, regardless of it's type.

Unfortunately matters aren't that simple with highways since drivers on the highways might think of driving through a tunnel even if the know they are surpassing an wide aqueduct. In that case it's completely acceptable to map a "tunnel=yes" to the highways.

Now what about the rule "avoid tunnels below bridges"? Well "avoid" does not mean "must not", therefore it's quite acceptable to not follow this rule here. Rules are never always correct and here is such a case.

When mapping we always should try to map what's there in reality or what the user of the map sees or thinks it's there. Only then maps might eventually give the right impression of a location.

I think I've now made clear how aqueducts should be mapped even in Nederlands.

Hans Erren · 2018-10-27 20:11:24

The discussion is: when should a road under an aquaduct be mapped as a tunnel?

wyo · 2018-10-27 21:50:10

Hans Erren wrote:

The discussion is: when should a road under an aquaduct be mapped as a tunnel?

If this is true, then why do some Nederlands mapper remove my aqueducts?

eggie · 2018-10-27 21:58:54

tagged man_made=aquaduct at node connected with waterway, with name=M.C. Escher Akwadukt for temp solution.
man_made is also permitted as a node.
Anyway aquaduct is in the database, but see it as a temp solution untill there is consensus.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset … 7&layers=N

Last edited by eggie (2018-10-27 22:00:27)

wyo · 2018-10-27 22:55:35

eggie wrote:

tagged man_made=aquaduct at node connected with waterway, with name=M.C. Escher Akwadukt for temp solution.
man_made is also permitted as a node.
Anyway aquaduct is in the database, but see it as a temp solution untill there is consensus.

Stupied proposition, permitted does not mean correct. There is absolute no reason to change my correct mapping. If you have a discussion tunnel=yes/no then do it without vandalizing my mapping.

eggie · 2018-10-27 23:15:16

The problem is that a modern aquaduct in my opinion is something completely different from mapping an aquaduct like the historic Pont du Gard or even the aquaduct over the river Loire.
If there is an solution in proper rendering with man_made=aqueduct I will be happy.

mboeringa · 2018-10-27 23:40:10

eggie wrote:

The problem is that a modern aquaduct in my opinion is something completely different from mapping an aquaduct like the historic Pont du Gard or even the aquaduct over the river Loire.
If there is an solution in proper rendering with man_made=aqueduct I will be happy.

I do not agree with the man_made=aqueduct tag you suggest, I think I am largely with wyo with regards to tagging.

The Wiki pages have been quite clear and stable for this for the past few years, and you should ignore the image of the historic aqueduct used on the bridge=x page or interpret this as a general representation of modern and historic aqueducts, which is obvious from the dedicated Wiki page for bridge=aqueduct, which also shows modern aqueducts: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag … 3Daqueduct

Modern aqueduct tagging:
man_made=bridge
bridge=aqueduct

IMO always on a closed way, not linear waterway. Aqueducts are mostly large scale / high zoom detail, and most useful when tagged as a closed way / polygon, instead of as an attribute of the waterway line.

Relevant Wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:man_made
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag … 3Daqueduct

Historic aqueduct tagging:
historic=aqueduct

Usually tagged only as non-closed linear way. Historic aqueducts are mostly non-navigable waterways to conduct fresh water, contrary to modern day navigable structures to cross roads.

Relevant Wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag … 3Daqueduct

KiaaTiX · 2018-10-28 01:24:40

Hi Wyo,

I agree with the majority of what you say, but I do have my own comments about some of the arguments you give.

wyo wrote:

Aqueducts are rather easily recognized as a bridge where water flows across. In some cases these objects are even named something like "...Akwadukt" or "Akwadukt...". So there shouldn't be any question how they are mapped.

The meaning/defenition of a word differs between languages. Here an aquaduct can also mean a 'short tunnel' under some water. The defenition of what an aquaduct is is a bit looser here.

The aquaduct above is clearly a tunnel, not a water bridge...

wyo wrote:

Aqueducts are a rather important information on waterways and have to be shown on the map. Aqueducts are definitiv an important information for tourists regardless if they travel by bicycle, car or boat. And knowing that an aqueduct is ahead is informative even for drivers on highways.

Here in The Netherlands the land is as flat as it can be. As a boat you don't really notice anything when going over an aquaduct. No change in views or surroundings exept a road which goes down and under you. Not much different than with regular tunnels. Just a smaller waterway.

Besides, it is not like you can really see the real structure of an aquaduct from the water anyway.

wyo wrote:

Aqueducts are all over the world the same, simply transporting some water above some air and something else which clearly means a bridge. This is no different in Nederlands. Therefore aqueducts should be tagged "bridge=aqueduct" and "bridge_name="..." on the waterway as everywhere on the world.

All aquaducts carry water over air, but not all structures which do so are aquaducts. Here we run into a semantics issue here over what an aquaduct actually is. While aquaducts should be tagged as bridges, a lot of people see them as small tunnels or underpasses under the existing landscape.

wyo wrote:

Water which flows goes rather seldom upwards, so aqueducts should be normally tagged "layer=0" (or no layer which implies zero) yet it's not wrong to tag them "layer=1" or higher if necessary. Ways below should be tagged with negative layers.

wyo wrote:

Usually the water of a waterway is much wider than the waterway itself and bridges aren't. This can be helped by a "wide=..." tag on the aqueduct. A more complex solution is to map a "man_made=bridge" according to the size of the aqueduct. With this renderer might someday render aqueducts correctly.

I fully agree with you on this.

wyo wrote:

Now what with the under passing ways. Even in Nederlands nobody questions how waterways below an aqueduct are tagged, simply as normal waterways. So what is different with other ways, e.g. highways? Nothing is different, a way is always a way, regardless of it's type.

A lot of aquaducts are structures built to carry water above the existing landscape. In a lot of cases these are man made canals for shipping or water supply. This is not the case here in The Netherlands (again, geography). All aquaducts here are basically just roads (or other ways) going under a very narrow river. The only thing which sets them apart from regular tunnels is the width of the waterway and slightly different construction (because smaller waterway).

Furthermore, waterways under aquaducts do not exist here. Natural water cannot possibly exist due to the mentioned geography, and man made water under an aquaduct (for which you have to dig a hole) is just plain stupid to have.

wyo wrote:

Unfortunately matters aren't that simple with highways since drivers on the highways might think of driving through a tunnel even if the know they are surpassing an wide aqueduct. In that case it's completely acceptable to map a "tunnel=yes" to the highways.

wyo wrote:

Now what about the rule "avoid tunnels below bridges"? Well "avoid" does not mean "must not", therefore it's quite acceptable to not follow this rule here. Rules are never always correct and here is such a case.

wyo wrote:

When mapping we always should try to map what's there in reality or what the user of the map sees or thinks it's there. Only then maps might eventually give the right impression of a location.

I also agree with you here

Most of the problems with tagging aquaducts originate from regional differences between different parts of the world. This might explain why there is such a backlash against you labeling all aquaducts bridges.

Last edited by KiaaTiX (2018-10-28 02:50:15)

KiaaTiX · 2018-10-28 01:44:43

Last to answer the question in the title:

Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

Like Hans said, it is because there is disagreement as to whether something is a water carrying bridge or short tunnel. This choice is (unfortunately) kind of subjective and it highly dependents on the individual mapper.

The current tagging might be wrong according to the definition on the wiki. But that does not mean they are not 'correctly mapped'.

AndriesWijma · 2018-10-28 02:00:42

wyo wrote:

If this is true, then why do some Nederlands mapper remove my aqueducts?

There may be a difference in interpretation here. You seem to imply that your addition of the tag bridge=aqueduct turned the mapped objects for the first time into aqueducts. The Dutch community regarded them as 'mapped' already before your edits, but just not in an ideal or consistent way. Two reasons for that: firstly there is no general and clear distinction between bridge and tunnel and thus no consenus when which tag to use, including for aqueducts. Secondly aqueducts can have quite different characteristics.
Just as some viaducts in The Netherlands have officially been named 'tunnel', some aqueducts are not real bridge-constructions but rather tunnel-like.

It would be nice if an aqueduct could be tagged somehow on the waterway but unlike you suggested in an other topic most aqueducts in The Netherlands are not really obstacles for water traffic and the canals are hardly narrowed at the passages.

Quote from the English discussion thread:

wyo wrote:

We always map objects as they are and never as they were rendered nicely. It’s up to the programmers of a renderer to show objects nicely but never up to the mapper.

Mappers do have to take technical limitations into account. The reason that the rendering of an area man_made=bridge combined with an area like water goes wrong on OSM.org is because of that. As I have understood it would take a radical change in programming or an enormous increase of computing power. A solution is not to be expected anywhere in the near future.
Is there any other popular OSM-based map where this tagging does give a satisfying result?

I do think that an aqueduct-tag on a waterway would be desirable so they can be easily detected for water traffic. The (temporary) solution of bridge=aqueduct on a node, as suggested by Eggie, could do the job.

Last edited by AndriesWijma (2018-10-28 02:02:44)

EOSfoto · 2018-10-28 07:19:10

Why Swiss mappers don't follow the Dutch consensus, should be the title of this threat.

noordfiets · 2018-10-28 09:25:15

KiaaTiX wrote:

The current tagging might be wrong according to the definition on the wiki. But that does not mean they are not 'correctly mapped'.

The definition of aqueduct shows examples that are rare in NL.

The discussion is old: 50 years ago at primary school when we were tought about aqueducts ( aquaduct in Dutch ) we wondered wether a tunnel under a waterway is called an aqueduct or not?
Now how to build a tunnel depends on the local geographic circomstances. In NL we rarely use 'real' tunneling as there is only soil: for short distances it is easier to just dig a trence and reconstruct whatever was above it in concrete.

Wether the resulting structure is called aqueduct or tunnel highly depends on local politics: aqueduct sounds more fancy than tunnel. But most road-users regard it as a tunnel since the road changes level and is obvious, while the waterway seems to continue without change.

What choice of tagging is used is up to the local users / habits. Just like e.g. a dirtroad: what may be called highway in Australia is called track in NL. Perhaps the Dutch are strongminded here: local planners and politicians can invent names as much as they like, we just call it a tunnel. And map accordingly. Does it matter? Not really. In fact the use of tunnel better fits the reality than aqueduct in most cases.

wyo · 2018-10-28 09:44:10

KiaaTiX wrote:

The meaning/defenition of a word differs between languages. Here an aquaduct can also mean a 'short tunnel' under some water.

Sorry??? So far there doesn't exists a single translation of "Akwadukt" mentioning anything about "tunnel".

KiaaTiX wrote:

The defenition of what an aquaduct is is a bit looser here.
https://www.meerbode.nl/wp-content/uplo … 40x360.jpg
The aquaduct above is clearly a tunnel, not a water bridge...

Then you have to ask yourself why the builder of this object have named it "Amstel Aquaduct" and not "Amstel Tunnel". Also ask yourself what somebody thinks when one reads this name. Forgive me if can't follow your argumentation.

I probably wouldn't map this object as a aqueduct myself yet I also wouldn't remove the tag if anybody else would map it.

Let's give you an analog sample of another object. Assume you stay in front of an ordinary building like a house. Now when you look onto the map you seen a cross for a church right where the building ist. No what, are you going to remove the cross since you can't see anything similar to a church? Probably not. Then why with aqueducts?

KiaaTiX wrote:

wyo wrote:
Aqueducts are a rather important information on waterways and have to be shown on the map. Aqueducts are definitiv an important information for tourists regardless if they travel by bicycle, car or boat. And knowing that an aqueduct is ahead is informative even for drivers on highways.
Here in The Netherlands the land is as flat as it can be.

What's so special about being flat? There are many more countries which are flat. There is everywhere the same meaning what an aqueduct is. When an object is named aqueduct then no question about it should even arise.

KiaaTiX wrote:

As a boat you don't really notice anything when going over an aquaduct. No change in views or surroundings exept a road which goes down and under you. Not much different than with regular tunnels. Just a smaller waterway.

That's never the case with any object I've mapped. All of them are visible albeit sometimes only when it's too late for taking pictures. That's another reason to see this object in advance of the map.

KiaaTiX wrote:

All aquaducts carry water over air, but not all structures which do so are aquaducts. Here we run into a semantics issue here over what an aquaduct actually is. While aquaducts should be tagged as bridges, a lot of people see them as small tunnels or underpasses under the existing landscape.

True not all tunnels are aqueducts. I'll never suggest that the Dover-Calais tunnel is actually an aqueduct. Yet all objects (no exception) I've mapped are aqueducts. All your reasoning doesn't change that fact.

I'm not opposing any "tunnel=yes" mapping. If anybody think it's necessary just do it, albeit a "tunnel_name=...Akwadukt" looks rather curious.

KiaaTiX wrote:

A lot of aquaducts are structures built to carry water above the existing landscape. In a lot of cases these are man made canals for shipping or water supply. This is not the case here in The Netherlands (again, geography). All aquaducts here are basically just roads (or other ways) going under a very narrow river. The only thing which sets them apart from regular tunnels is the width of the waterway and slightly different construction (because smaller waterway).

Once again Nederlands is no different than other countries. Only the width decides if a "tunnel=yes" or not makes sense. Sorry I'm getting problems to understand your reasoning, it's becoming more and more abstruse.

KiaaTiX wrote:

Furthermore, waterways under aquaducts do not exist here. Natural water cannot possibly exist due to the mentioned geography, and man made water under an aquaduct (for which you have to dig a hole) is just plain stupid to have.

You probably don't mean what you've written. What's this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46739 … 2&layers=N?

Peter Elderson · 2018-10-28 09:59:57

@wyo Please conform to the local consensus, even if you disagree. Mapping aquaduct as a waterbridge has been discussed. The standard rendering is, at the moment, not good enough. If that is improved or will be in the near future, I’m sure we will rethink this. If you want to help this along, please put your effort in improving standard rendering, not in an edit war against the national OSM community.

JeroenHoek · 2018-10-28 10:02:31

wyo wrote:

I'll never suggest that the Dover-Calais tunnel is actually an aqueduct.

Why not? It follows from your reasoning. Is it the width? The construction method? The name?

KiaaTiX wrote:

The meaning/defenition of a word differs between languages. Here an aquaduct can also mean a 'short tunnel' under some water. The defenition of what an aquaduct is is a bit looser here.

Exactly. This is a semantics issue: if this particular construction was called the M.C. Eschertunnel we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The modern Dutch (and Frisian) use of the word aqueduct just does not imply bridge.

wyo · 2018-10-28 10:15:48

noordfiets wrote:

Now how to build a tunnel depends on the local geographic circomstances. In NL we rarely use 'real' tunneling as there is only soil: for short distances it is easier to just dig a trence and reconstruct whatever was above it in concrete.

How it was constructed should not influence the mapping since this information might be lost. Also this might lead to wrong interpretation.

noordfiets wrote:

Wether the resulting structure is called aqueduct or tunnel highly depends on local politics: aqueduct sounds more fancy than tunnel. But most road-users regard it as a tunnel since the road changes level and is obvious, while the waterway seems to continue without change.

Even politicians can't decide on fancy or not. They have to rise rather much money, therefore the name isn't chosen easily.

noordfiets wrote:

What choice of tagging is used is up to the local users / habits. Just like e.g. a dirtroad: what may be called highway in Australia is called track in NL. Perhaps the Dutch are strongminded here: local planners and politicians can invent names as much as they like, we just call it a tunnel. And map accordingly. Does it matter? Not really. In fact the use of tunnel better fits the reality than aqueduct in most cases.

Do don't really mean that! The OSM wiki is exactly made to prevent such mapping. Otherwise Nederlands driver will eventually get stuck when driving on a Austrian highway. Or Austrian driver might make large bypasses because of tracks. Therefore it's very important that mapping is everywhere the same. So far I've not seen a single reason why mapping of aqueducts in Nederlands should be different.

wyo · 2018-10-28 10:20:52

Peter Elderson wrote:

@wyo Please conform to the local consensus, even if you disagree. Mapping aquaduct as a waterbridge has been discussed. The standard rendering is, at the moment, not good enough...

Mapping has never ever to consider any good or bad rendering. If you consider rendering of aqueducts bad then stop mapping and starting programming yourself.

wyo · 2018-10-28 10:33:46

JeroenHoek wrote:

wyo wrote:
I'll never suggest that the Dover-Calais tunnel is actually an aqueduct.
Why not? It follows from your reasoning. Is it the width? The construction method? The name?

Sorry you either haven't understood any of my reasoning or aren't interested in a serious discussion. I don't discuss on that level anymore.

JeroenHoek wrote:

The modern Dutch (and Frisian) use of the word aqueduct just does not imply bridge.

What a statement! I'll leave it to the Dutch (and Frisian) to comment on that.

Peter Elderson · 2018-10-28 10:36:35

wyo wrote:

Peter Elderson wrote:
@wyo Please conform to the local consensus, even if you disagree. Mapping aquaduct as a waterbridge has been discussed. The standard rendering is, at the moment, not good enough...
Mapping has never ever to consider any good or bad rendering. If you consider rendering of aqueducts bad then stop mapping and starting programming yourself.

Repeat: Please conform to the local consensus, even if you disagree.

wyo · 2018-10-28 10:51:53

Peter Elderson wrote:

Repeat: Please conform to the local consensus, even if you disagree.

Any world wide mapping rules overrides any local consensus unless there are important arguments otherwise. So far there are no arguments for locale mapping rules. Locale consensus has to be adjusted to the general mapping rules. So please stop mentioning locale consensus anymore.

Peter Elderson · 2018-10-28 11:02:38

@wyo You misunderstand the very concept of OSM. Nobody rules or enforces laws on his own. National communities and consensus are important. We have a national consensus here, with room for future improvement. Please stop interfering.

noordfiets · 2018-10-28 11:25:28

wyo wrote:

The OSM wiki is exactly made to prevent such mapping. Otherwise Nederlands driver will eventually get stuck when driving on a Austrian highway. Or Austrian driver might make large bypasses because of tracks. Therefore it's very important that mapping is everywhere the same. So far I've not seen a single reason why mapping of aqueducts in Nederlands should be different.

You can't disregard local circomstances and habits. The same road surface can have different levels of importance in different countries. We would never call a dirtroad a highway. Simply because is isn't in NL.
The same is true for aqueducts: yes we have some. But the majority is simply a tunnel with a souped-up name.
As for world-wide mapping rules: they don't exist but are guidlines. And even if I would follow the wike for aqueducts, based on the examples given I would conclude most of our tunnels are indeed no aqueduct.

wyo · 2018-10-28 12:11:30

AndriesWijma wrote:

There may be a difference in interpretation here. You seem to imply that your addition of the tag bridge=aqueduct turned the mapped objects for the first time into aqueducts. The Dutch community regarded them as 'mapped' already before your edits, but just not in an ideal or consistent way. Two reasons for that: firstly there is no general and clear distinction between bridge and tunnel and thus no consenus when which tag to use, including for aqueducts. Secondly aqueducts can have quite different characteristics.

There might be some interpretation anywhere yet never in the cases I've mapped. The rules mentioned in the OSM wiki do correctly apply to any of the objects.

There's always an argument about local consensus. When the locale consensus violates the general rules then the local consensus has to be adjusted and not my mapping.

AndriesWijma wrote:

Just as some viaducts in The Netherlands have officially been named 'tunnel', some aqueducts are not real bridge-constructions but rather tunnel-like.

I've never mapped any object named "...tunnel". Also I've never mapped any object which I haven't seen at least once. Believe me I know what I do.

AndriesWijma wrote:

It would be nice if an aqueduct could be tagged somehow on the waterway but unlike you suggested in an other topic most aqueducts in The Netherlands are not really obstacles for water traffic and the canals are hardly narrowed at the passages.

Being an obstacle is not a hint for aqueducts. Sometimes aqueducts are, sometimes aren't.

AndriesWijma wrote:

Quote from the English discussion thread:
wyo wrote:
We always map objects as they are and never as they were rendered nicely. It’s up to the programmers of a renderer to show objects nicely but never up to the mapper.
Mappers do have to take technical limitations into account. The reason that the rendering of an area man_made=bridge combined with an area like water goes wrong on OSM.org is because of that. As I have understood it would take a radical change in programming or an enormous increase of computing power. A solution is not to be expected anywhere in the near future.
Is there any other popular OSM-based map where this tagging does give a satisfying result?

True. I'm no sacrosanct against mapping for rendering. But when it comes to lead to miss interpretation then correct mapping has priority. Aqueducts are such important features they have to be on maps even if rendering isn't appropriate. Just think of an ordinary building tagged as a church, nobody would ever consider removing this tag.

I've several times said if one thinks of mapping a tunnel under an aqueduct, then do it but never remove the aqueduct. This is perfectly well with the general rules.

AndriesWijma wrote:

I do think that an aqueduct-tag on a waterway would be desirable so they can be easily detected for water traffic. The (temporary) solution of bridge=aqueduct on a node, as suggested by Eggie, could do the job.

Why do a temporary mapping when correct mapping is possible. This is a silly proposition. No renderer will ever consider and use temporary mapping.

We are now back to the question: Why to Nederlands mapper not map aqueducts as aqueducts? So far not a single argument which makes sense has come up.

I do mostly mapping of waterways not only in NL but also in other countries. So I've a rather good idea of what I do. I'm not closed to any sensible argument if they are given. Just look up the discussion about Marrekite naming. So far there isn't any regarding aqueducts. Locale consensus doesn't apply since there isn't any argument for it either. Therefore general rules apply and these are rather clear.

multimodaal · 2018-10-28 12:17:46

As a reader who hasn't yet formed an opinon on this matter it is a bit hard to get a good view of the actual remaining arguments between all the accusations. And even if we disagree, we are all in this because we enjoy mapping and the results of it.

@ Wyo:
thanks for contributing to waterway information in the Netherlands and contatcting this forum. You seem to make some interesting points, but I think the way you formulate them (starting with the title of this thread) might cause other people to get on the defensive rather than to listen and evaluate your agruments.

I for one was curious to your answer about the arguments for not tagging the Calais-Dovert tunnel as an a aqueduct given the arguments you propose.

@Dutch posters: let's not forget that in both directions things might get lost or misunderstood in translation and maybe it's good sometimes to have a fresh set of foreign eyes questioning the things that we have grown accustomed to, so we can re-evaluate to assess if this is still the way to go for us.

AndriesWijma · 2018-10-28 12:50:18

wyo wrote:

Even in Nederlands nobody questions how waterways below an aqueduct are tagged, simply as normal waterways. So what is different with other ways, e.g. highways? Nothing is different, a way is always a way, regardless of it's type.

Roads can quite easily be constructed to 'make a dive' under a construction, waterways can't. Therefore 'waterway over waterway' needs a typical bridge-construction while the water-road-aqueducts in The Netherlands are build as an inclusive construction where the infrastructural changes are usually bigger for the way beneath (the road) than for the way above (the water).
In other words: Dutch aqueducts are mainly constructed in the ground in stead of above the ground.

wyo wrote:

Then you have to ask yourself why the builder of this object have named it "Amstel Aquaduct" and not "Amstel Tunnel". Also ask yourself what somebody thinks when one reads this name.

And why this one is called Prinses Margriettunnel? https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.9990757, … a=!3m1!1e3
Also, it is quite common in The Netherlands to refer to an aqueduct as a tunnnel.

wyo wrote:

There is everywhere the same meaning what an aqueduct is. When an object is named aqueduct then no question about it should even arise.

Now it gets confusing. Should we decide which is what on the basis of the construction and its dimensions or on the basis of the name?

wyo wrote:

KiaaTiX wrote:
As a boat you don't really notice anything when going over an aquaduct. No change in views or surroundings exept a road which goes down and under you. Not much different than with regular tunnels. Just a smaller waterway.
That's never the case with any object I've mapped. All of them are visible albeit sometimes only when it's too late for taking pictures. That's another reason to see this object in advance of the map.

Really? Maybe you can share the photos you've taken when you sailed over all the aqueducts in The Netherlands.

wyo wrote:

JeroenHoek wrote:
The modern Dutch (and Frisian) use of the word aqueduct just does not imply bridge.
What a statement! I'll leave it to the Dutch (and Frisian) to comment on that.

You think JeroenHoek comes from Mars or something?
I can confirm that a lot of Dutch and Frisian people do use the word tunnel when referring to an aqueduct. The word bridge on the other hand is not much used. The thing is that people here tend to refer to the whole construction that makes the crossing of road and waterway possible. Users of the road under/through the aqueduct see a lot of concrete construction and users of the waterway don't see much of it. That's a major factor in how people experience and name such an object.

Just look at these pictures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(bridge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(bridge)

Dutch aqueducts are not anything like that.

Please stop pretending as if things called aqueducts are in essence all the same.
You are assuming things about Dutch infrastructure and disregard the knowledge of real Dutch and Frisian people.

Last edited by AndriesWijma (2018-10-28 12:52:21)

Announcement

#1 2018-10-27 19:37:32

Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#2 2018-10-27 20:11:24

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#3 2018-10-27 21:50:10

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#4 2018-10-27 21:58:54

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#5 2018-10-27 22:55:35

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#6 2018-10-27 23:15:16

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#7 2018-10-27 23:40:10

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#8 2018-10-28 01:24:40

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#9 2018-10-28 01:44:43

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#10 2018-10-28 02:00:42

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#11 2018-10-28 07:19:10

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#12 2018-10-28 09:25:15

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#13 2018-10-28 09:44:10

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#14 2018-10-28 09:59:57

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#15 2018-10-28 10:02:31

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#16 2018-10-28 10:15:48

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#17 2018-10-28 10:20:52

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#18 2018-10-28 10:33:46

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#19 2018-10-28 10:36:35

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#20 2018-10-28 10:51:53

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#21 2018-10-28 11:02:38

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#22 2018-10-28 11:25:28

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#23 2018-10-28 12:11:30

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#24 2018-10-28 12:17:46

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

#25 2018-10-28 12:50:18

Re: Why aren't aqueducts in Nederlands correctly mapped?

Board footer