Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pully's EP_Tube #141

Open
ponceta opened this issue Dec 13, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Pully's EP_Tube #141

ponceta opened this issue Dec 13, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@ponceta
Copy link
Member

ponceta commented Dec 13, 2016

@qwat/board Like in #139, in Pully we have also protection tubes which are installed locally

These are 3D polylines, with attributes like protection type, material, filling material, nominal diameters (inner and outer), status, date, comment.

image

Are we the only ones to have that?

@tudorbarascu
Copy link
Member

We also have protection pipes (in high traffic areas etc.) that go outside the range of what's currently in the data model (old PE pipe, old Steel pipe etc.).

@ponceta
Copy link
Member Author

ponceta commented Dec 6, 2018

@tudorbarascu did you try defining a class for protection pipes?

I'll ask Lausanne too to see if they have adressed this issue.

@ponceta
Copy link
Member Author

ponceta commented Dec 6, 2018

Nous avons un attribut dans la couche « conduite » qui identifie les conduites qui possède une protection autour de la conduite.
Nous nous posons la question pour la gestion des pousse-tubes, si on devrait les classer dans une autre table.
Actuellement les pousse-tubes (leur géométries) se trouvent dans les conduites.

I'm not a great fan of having protection pipes in pipe for topological reasons, but that's indeed a solution.

I'll see if I can come with a better proposal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants