Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Kotya Karapetyan
Dear all,

This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting

Cheers,
Kotya

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

François Lacombe-2
Hi Kotya,

Thank you for this proposal and for the work around to complete it.

In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of lack of consistency with many other tags.
Such water taps may be part of larger networks with many kind of features.

Building a proposal for each particular feature will result in many different keys (man_made, natural, water, drinking_water) where one or two may do the trick.
Some of these keys (like man_made) are used just because we don't have any other dedicated key.
The reflection should be done globally to get a consistent tagging scheme.

I know any network like water networks are difficult to understand since most of them are hidden underground but we can start with any visible stuff everyone can see.

I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.


All the best.

François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux

2015-01-11 11:58 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]>:
Dear all,

This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting

Cheers,
Kotya

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Pieren
In reply to this post by Kotya Karapetyan
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting

I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and
provided my arguments. But now  I'm asked to forward them on this
mailing list (perhaps to see if I'm the only who disagrees).

My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing
"amenity=drinking_water" tag. And we get enough complains from
newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion.
The "amenity=drinking_water" tag is old and widely used (82.000 in
taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource
which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the
question referenced from the "help" site ([1]). I fully agree that we
need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag
"amenity=drinking_water". I did not follow the whole discussion but
when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first
sentence in the wiki says "This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly
usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water
taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be
further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. " A bit later, there is
a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where
is the difference between "man_made=water_tap"+"drinking_water=yes"
and "amenity=drinking_water". And nowhere it says if "drinking_water"
subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about
potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a
tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the
lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older
tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. What I don't like is what we
have seen in the past with some proposals deliberately ambiguous about
deprecating older tags because they know it is not very popular in the
votes, and enforced the deprecation later, when the tag is moved to
the "adopted" sections. I'm not personnally a big supporter of the
amenity=drinking_water but I think the current proposal is not clear
enough compared to the existing tags.

Pieren

[1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Kotya Karapetyan
Hi François,

> I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.

Have you also voted at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
?

> In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of
lack of consistency with many other tags.

I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to
contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to
maintain it.

Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4
months already!

Cheers,
Kotya



François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 08:38:57 UTC 2015

Hi Kotya,

Thank you for this proposal and for the work around to complete it.

In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of
lack of consistency with many other tags.
Such water taps may be part of larger networks with many kind of features.

Building a proposal for each particular feature will result in many
different keys (man_made, natural, water, drinking_water) where one or two
may do the trick.
Some of these keys (like man_made) are used just because we don't have any
other dedicated key.
The reflection should be done globally to get a consistent tagging scheme.

I know any network like water networks are difficult to understand since
most of them are hidden underground but we can start with any visible stuff
everyone can see.

I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.


All the best.

*François Lacombe*

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

François Lacombe-2

2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]>:

> I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.

Have you also voted at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
?

Yes, as Fanfouer

 

I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to
contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to
maintain it.

Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains, springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to OSM would be a great beginning.

We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some of them to best describe those features.

 
Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4
months already!

The time shouldn't be a problem here.
4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be completed.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement


All the best


François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux
 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

fly high
Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe:

>
> 2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>
>     > I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
>
>     Have you also voted at
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
>     ?
>
>
> Yes, as Fanfouer

I won't vote.

>
>     I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to
>     contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to
>     maintain it.
>
>
> Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains,
> springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to
> OSM would be a great beginning.
>
> We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some
> of them to best describe those features.
>
>  
>
>     Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4
>     months already!
>
>
> The time shouldn't be a problem here.
> 4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be
> completed.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement

And there is no need to ever have a vote.

Most of the discussion as far as I remember where beyond man_made=water_tap.

The proposal now is only about one tag and as I read it, it is no
replacement but only a possible addition to amenity=drinking_water,
though this could be better documented.

Hope the rest of the discussion won't get lost and we already had
similar problems with amenity=drinking_water + drinking_water=no. E.g.
we need some rework of the whole issue and at least two tags where one
could describe the method/structure to gain the water (well,tap ..).

Cheers fly

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Warin
In reply to this post by Kotya Karapetyan
On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren [hidden email] To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap Message-ID: [hidden email] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan [hidden email] wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing
"amenity=drinking_water" tag. And we get enough complains from
newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion.
The "amenity=drinking_water" tag is old and widely used (82.000 in
taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource
which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the
question referenced from the "help" site ([1]). I fully agree that we
need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag
"amenity=drinking_water". I did not follow the whole discussion but
when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first
sentence in the wiki says "This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly
usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water
taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be
further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. " A bit later, there is
a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where
is the difference between "man_made=water_tap"+"drinking_water=yes"
and "amenity=drinking_water". And nowhere it says if "drinking_water"
subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about
potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a
tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the
lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older
tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. 

Pieren

I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close.

1) amenity=drinking_water
The wiki has photos of blubbers - one tap. And that is what I have used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to only reference blubbers or things that are meant for the human to directly consume water.  But that is another discussion! And should be raised as a separate issue/subject to attract attention to it on that topic ONLY. amenity=drinking_water needs clarification. Without any other tag for a tap .. well I'll use it inappropriately as I have no other choice... is that a solution that is acceptable? Or should I use amenity=water_point .. though it is not intended for large quantities of water?

2) Taps. They need a tag. There is nothing suitable. Sub tags for them have been discussed and there is a lot in them .. but they again should be a separate topic/subject as they could be applied to other water objects.


Voting 'no' on taps .. to me means we should not tag taps. May be I should not map blubbers either ! Not clear to me what amenity=drinking_water means exactly? And then there is the old chestnut of highway=footway and highway=path.  That is a ridiculous thing .. and to justify it saying it is historical is no justification at all. If the tag tap is better then why reject it due to a less suitable tag being present? Just so the less suitable tag continues?

3) alternatives ?
 amenity=water_point with sub tags
portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/
temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling
tap=yes/no
flow_rate=l/m
spigot=plain/threaded
? others?


Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus
water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/?

Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a level should be a new discussion.

==========================
There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very basic level, are 'we' tagging what things are ... or what they are used for? Both have been used, but there should be a fundamental decision to go one way or the other.









_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Marc Gemis

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close.

-1. Why would it be too late ? It is not because a small group of people (1?) decides that is time to vote, that others cannot object.

regards

m.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

althio


On Jan 14, 2015 5:53 PM, "Marc Gemis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close.
>
>
> -1. Why would it be too late ? It is not because a small group of people (1?) decides that is time to vote, that others cannot object.

Especially when they have raised early concerns
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/water_tap#amenity.3Ddrinking_water


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Warin
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 10:45 +1100, Warin wrote:

> used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using
> amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to
[...]
> portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/

Minor correction: potable, not portable.

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

brycenesbitt
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
I've just voted "no".

While I appreciate the intentions, the proposal is just not mature.
The goals are muddy.  The drafting is confusing.
And there's been no attempt to reach out to those creating apps and
other tools for drinking water mapping worldwide.

This proposal needlessly sets back those drinking water mapping
efforts which have been underway -- and successful -- over the last
years.

-------
Please don't damage the existing use case (that of finding a place to
get human drinkable water).

Drinking water mapping is a great OSM activity, and one that
commercial mapping providers probably won't get to for a long time.
Let's do it right.  I hope this proposal is voted down, so a better
foundation can be laid.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Kotya Karapetyan
In reply to this post by Kotya Karapetyan
Dear all,

As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
(15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with
clean up.

I appreciate all the discussion and help from your side (it was my
first proposal, so I didn't know exactly how it should be carried
out).

To those who voted against the proposal: Thanks to you too for
consideration. There was a bunch of remarks concerning the clash
between amenity=drinking_water and this proposal. As the discussion in
this list has shown, those who voted in support of this proposal have
been aware of the clash. The reason to introduce the new value was not
to solve all water-related problems but to close the unfortunate gap
provoking incorrect or improvised tagging. No better solution could
have been identified during the extended and long discussion. So
please consider this situation as a compromise.

There was also a remark that the water tags should be reviewed. I
fully support this idea. Let's start at the current Warin's discussion
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020941.html.

Cheers,
Kotya



On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Pieren
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
> approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
> (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with
> clean up.

Sorry but you could extend the period of feedbacks. 7 of the 11
positive "votes" came before the 13th january when I posted my
comments about the possible issues (and the discussion forwarded here
which probably drew more attention to more people). After this date
the trend was much more balanced. You say you are aware of the clash
with amenity=drinking_water but you don't explain how you will avoid
this in your cleanup. You also agree that we need a rework but your
proposal is just increasing the difficulties than solving them in the
future. Now, for a water tap in the public space, it will be tagged
with "amenity=drinking_water". And for the same water tap inside or
near a cemetery, it will be tagged with "man_made=water_tap". How can
we explain that to newcomers ? why "amenity" in one case and
"man_made" on the other ? what is implied about potability ? etc

Pieren

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Marc Gemis
So what is the solution ?

amenity=non_drinking_water ?

It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging scheme for water sources.

regards

m.



On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieren <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
> approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
> (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with
> clean up.

Sorry but you could extend the period of feedbacks. 7 of the 11
positive "votes" came before the 13th january when I posted my
comments about the possible issues (and the discussion forwarded here
which probably drew more attention to more people). After this date
the trend was much more balanced. You say you are aware of the clash
with amenity=drinking_water but you don't explain how you will avoid
this in your cleanup. You also agree that we need a rework but your
proposal is just increasing the difficulties than solving them in the
future. Now, for a water tap in the public space, it will be tagged
with "amenity=drinking_water". And for the same water tap inside or
near a cemetery, it will be tagged with "man_made=water_tap". How can
we explain that to newcomers ? why "amenity" in one case and
"man_made" on the other ? what is implied about potability ? etc

Pieren

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Janko Mihelić
I don't get how amenity=drinking_water is a problem. It is just a tag with a wider meaning. "man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes" is a special type of "amenity=drinking_water", as is "natural=spring+drinking_water=yes" or some other combination.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Janko Mihelić
As for newcomers, I think editors like iD should hide the intricacies of the tagging system anyway. If you click "drinking water" it puts "amenity=drinking_water". But then it offers you all types of drinking water, like "a tap, a spring, bottled water in a vending machine, a hose, a well" and if you choose "a tap" it puts man_made=water_tap + drinking_water=yes.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Pieren
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> amenity=non_drinking_water ?

Or "amenity=non_drinkable_water" + a subtag describing the object

> It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be
> able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging
> scheme for water sources.

I never said that. Although very hard, it is not impossible to
deprecate a tag in OSM. We just need real good arguments for it.

Pieren

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

althio
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for
interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already
reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help.

@Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water
It feels like a good start and compromise.
Either can be associated with a more physical feature that represents
an outlet of a water network.

A few tagging examples...

any point with drinking water:
amenity=drinking_water
+ [opt] man_made=*

a well:
man_made=water_well
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water

a tap:
man_made=water_tap
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water

a water point:
man_made=water_tap or man_made=water_point or man_made=water_supply or ...
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water
* currently exists amenity=water_point ... I find it a bad tag, this
one I would consider to maybe deprecate and link as a equivalent
amenity=water_point <=> amenity=drinking_water + man_made=[to_be_chosen]

and it should not implies drinking_water=yes.

a fountain for cultural / decorational / recreational purposes [often
not suitable for drinking]:
amenity=fountain
(man_made=fountain is maybe more logical... and here 2x amenity can clash)
* if it is drinking water, a workaround would be two features, ideally
a node amenity=drinking_water within an area (however small)
amenity=fountain. Some fountains are also detailed with an area of
natural=water.

toilets with drinking water
amenity=toilets and amenity=drinking_water as two features (2 nodes or
area+node)

drinking fountain
amenity=drinking_water
+ [opt] man_made=* (man_made=fountain if there is a need?)



Either way, the slightly conflicting tag are
amenity=[non_]drinking_water and drinking_water=yes/no.
They should be linked and treated together in algorithms.
I think amenity=drinking_water is a valuable tag because it is useful
to people. It makes sense to use it alone.
drinking_water=yes alone on a node makes less sense IMO.

water_point and water_tap should not assume

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

François Lacombe-2
I don't think the drinkable quality of water should be the prime criteria to tag water sources (or a reason to use amenity=*)
A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either the water is drinkable or not.

This data should be introduced with a tag drinkable=yes/no or any other values giving information about the drinkable quality of water for humans.

I agree with the approach of Althio on man_made.

François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux

2015-01-16 15:50 GMT+01:00 althio althio <[hidden email]>:
I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for
interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already
reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help.

@Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water
It feels like a good start and compromise.
Either can be associated with a more physical feature that represents
an outlet of a water network.

A few tagging examples...

any point with drinking water:
amenity=drinking_water
+ [opt] man_made=*

a well:
man_made=water_well
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water

a tap:
man_made=water_tap
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water

a water point:
man_made=water_tap or man_made=water_point or man_made=water_supply or ...
+ [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water
* currently exists amenity=water_point ... I find it a bad tag, this
one I would consider to maybe deprecate and link as a equivalent
amenity=water_point <=> amenity=drinking_water + man_made=[to_be_chosen]

and it should not implies drinking_water=yes.

a fountain for cultural / decorational / recreational purposes [often
not suitable for drinking]:
amenity=fountain
(man_made=fountain is maybe more logical... and here 2x amenity can clash)
* if it is drinking water, a workaround would be two features, ideally
a node amenity=drinking_water within an area (however small)
amenity=fountain. Some fountains are also detailed with an area of
natural=water.

toilets with drinking water
amenity=toilets and amenity=drinking_water as two features (2 nodes or
area+node)

drinking fountain
amenity=drinking_water
+ [opt] man_made=* (man_made=fountain if there is a need?)



Either way, the slightly conflicting tag are
amenity=[non_]drinking_water and drinking_water=yes/no.
They should be linked and treated together in algorithms.
I think amenity=drinking_water is a valuable tag because it is useful
to people. It makes sense to use it alone.
drinking_water=yes alone on a node makes less sense IMO.

water_point and water_tap should not assume

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Pieren
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, François Lacombe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either
> the water is drinkable or not.

Here you join the other thread about "philosophy of tagging". Some
people describe an object, others describe a service. You see a
fountain or a tap and you don't care much if water is drinkable or not
(you prioritize the object description above its functionality). But
many other contributors, bikers for instance, want to find drinkable
water points along the route and don't care if it's a tap or a
fountain (functionality more important than the shape).

Pieren

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12