Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

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

Re: Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

althio
It seems that Pieren and I agree on most points.

@François
Maybe drinkable water is a very special case... but here service/use
is much more important than object/feature. The ability to find this
water on a map or from any data consumer is useful. It can even be
essential to many people from hikers and bikers to inhabitants and
humanitarian NGO where water is in short supply.

Also consider the possibility of a open data import of geolocalised
water points. We should import them for added value even if the
supporting physical man_made=* is unknown.

You must tag what you know and what is useful.
man_made=water_[object] is useful.
amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water is useful.

Let's tag one or the other and both when we can. For me there is no
conflict or hierarchy between these two keys.

_______________________________________________
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 all,

1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw
was Warin's answer to Pieren's questions from 13 January. No response
appeared in my Gmail, so I went on with the standard procedure and
closed the proposal. Today, after reading a seemingly disconnected
post from althio, I went to check the tagging list archive and
discovered all emails from yesterday and today.

2. Having said this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that people who currently actively oppose the proposal have not
participated in a 4-month discussion, where most of the current
concerns were raised and analysed. At the same time, those who
participated earlier don't join the current discussion. I could
understand if they found it a waste of time and, honestly, I don't
understand why you guys were silent for so long. Pieren indeed posted
one comment in the discussion page, to which I answered and haven't
received any further feedback until now (3 months later).

3. Someone mentioned that other discussions took more than a year. I
haven't decided to close the discussion after 4 months. It simply
converged and actually someone else proposed to go for voting (thus
the group was >1 person, Marc :)).

So this discussion once again shows the problems in the current
proposal process.

4. To cool things down: Even if the participants of the re-started
discussion all vote against the proposal, it will still leave the
result intact (it would add Marc, Althio and Janko if they haven't
voted and bring the result to 11:8). However, if a better solution is
proposed, I'll be happy to go on and vote for deprecating the current
tag and introducing a better one.

That was on the process. Now, to the actual discussion:

5. If I understand right, the main concern of the water_tap opponents
is the conflict between man_made=water_tap and amenity=drinking_water.
I wonder why no concern is raised about the drinking_water key. It
provides the full "functionality" of amenity=drinking_water and more
(since it allows the "no" and "conditional" values as well as the
"legal" subtag). So there is a direct conflict but I haven't seen any
proposal to deprecate drinking_water=*.

6. I find amenity=non_drinking_water a poor solution in general: it
implies that the mapper knows that water is non-potable. This is not
always the case. Not only it may not be known (marked); people may
have different attitude to the same kind-of-potable water source.
Non_drinking_water also doesn't indicate whether the water may be made
potable. Note that this is asymmetric to amenity=drinking_water, which
is *always* potable.

7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution
than amenity=drinking_water:
7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important
for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated amenity, and still be very
useful: e.g. a public toilet in a well-developed country can provide
access to drinking water, but it's not an amenity=drinking_water, it
is amenity=toilet. Marking one thing with two amenity nodes is
possible but (1) it's a workaround rather than a nice solution; (2) I
think many people, especially tourists from less developed countries,
may not even understand such tagging and will be looking for a
dedicated amenity.
7.2) Drinking water may come in a huge variety of forms, for many of
which there are dedicated tags. If you care about water-deprived
tourists or NGOs, you should also think about water_well, water_point,
spring, toilet, water and landuse tags. All of them are potentially
"hiding" potable water from users, and most of them are not amenities.
This means that if a tourist wants to find the nearest source of
potable water, all these objects should be tagged with
drinking_water=yes and the map users should search for this tag rather
than for amenity=drinking_water. Therefore I would start a separate
discussion on how to make sure that all sources of potable water are
tagged with drinking_water=yes.

8. Most importantly: The water_tap tag was initiated to solve a
specific problem without causing any additional conflicts, namely to
provide the means to tag water taps *independent* from whether water
is potable or not. That is to map an object, for which there is
currently no means in OSM at all. After some discussion and attempts
to find alternative tagging, the current proposal was found to be an
optimal compromise because:
8.1) it is under man_made (there was a suggestion to make it an
amenity), meaning that it can be used together with
amenity=drinking_water to specify the type of the source;
8.2) it is very similar in all ways to man_made=water_well (again, I
haven't seen any doubts on that one), so it should look logical to
mappers;
8.3) it provides good means to tag a water source where there is a
dedicated amenity but potability is unclear and thus
amenity=drinking_water|non_drinking_water cannot be used;
8.4) unless used together with amenity=drinking_water, it delegates
specification of potability to a dedicated drinking_water=* tag.

I find it pretty well developed and fail to understand why some people
find it not mature.


In summary, this (and the original) discussion shows that there is
clearly some space for improvement in tagging. It looks like the
problem is deeper than a couple of suboptimal tags. No-one was able to
propose a solution that others would unanimously accept; taking into
account our joint experience and smartness, I consider it an
indication of the problem in the tagging approach itself.

Therefore I suggest to:
(1) accept the current proposal since it does solve a specific problem
following the current OSM style and doesn't cause more confusion than
there already exists;
(2) go on and try to find the root cause for our disagreement and a
good solution.

Cheers,
Kotya

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:42 PM, althio althio <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It seems that Pieren and I agree on most points.
>
> @François
> Maybe drinkable water is a very special case... but here service/use
> is much more important than object/feature. The ability to find this
> water on a map or from any data consumer is useful. It can even be
> essential to many people from hikers and bikers to inhabitants and
> humanitarian NGO where water is in short supply.
>
> Also consider the possibility of a open data import of geolocalised
> water points. We should import them for added value even if the
> supporting physical man_made=* is unknown.
>
> You must tag what you know and what is useful.
> man_made=water_[object] is useful.
> amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water is useful.
>
> Let's tag one or the other and both when we can. For me there is no
> conflict or hierarchy between these two keys.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Elena ``of Valhalla''
On 2015-01-17 at 01:03:05 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> 1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
> not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
> from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
> couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?)

have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as
spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam
folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at
least for a while.

--
Elena ``of Valhalla''

_______________________________________________
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
> have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as
> spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam
> folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at
> least for a while.


Yes, I have and do it regularly. Also the "all mail" folder, since
some emails get there without appearing in the inbox. Also just
searched for the messages. All in vain :(

_______________________________________________
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 Kotya Karapetyan
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
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).

I think you should take the negative feedback to heart, regardless of the vote outcome.

You're messing with existing successful tagging efforts, making it harder for those who came before you,
and effectively asking others to clean up after you.  The "exactly how to do it" is to address the issues and start over.

_______________________________________________
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 Kotya Karapetyan
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
2. Having said this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that people who currently actively oppose the proposal have not
participated in a 4-month discussion, where most of the current
concerns were raised and analysed.

Your job as a proposer is not just to stuff something on the wiki and hope nobody notices... you need
to FIND the community around the tags you are proposing.  You did not do this.

I happened to find you AND comment in a timely manner, so your statement above is not correct.
The goal is not to 'analyze and ignore' but rather to reach 'consensus'.
You are laser focused on mapping a specific feature, but missing the bigger picture.

http://wetap.org/ is an example organization you should have been able to identify and contact.
That's based on OSM data, and you are pulling the rug out from under them.

_______________________________________________
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 Kotya Karapetyan


On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution
than amenity=drinking_water:
7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important
for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated amenity, and still be very
useful: e.g. a public toilet in a well-developed country can provide
access to drinking water, but it's not an amenity=drinking_water, it
is amenity=toilet. Marking one thing with two amenity nodes is
possible but (1) it's a workaround rather than a nice solution; (2) I
think many people, especially tourists from less developed countries,
may not even understand such tagging and will be looking for a
dedicated amenity.

A key problem with your proposal is divergent tagging with no migration plan.

-------------

Double amenity was not in common use prior to your proposal:

amenity=toilets;drinking_water

Instead the tagging has been:

amenity=toilets
drinking_water=no

Similarly for shops:

amenity=shop
toilets=yes
toilets:wheelchair=yes
toilets:disposal=flush

Or other places:

tourism=camp_site
drinking_water=no
toilets=yes


At the first level of tagging these can be seen as attributes of the amenity, much like opening hours, website, etc..
If detailed tagging is done (e.g. individual camp pads), then the individual water taps can be mapped at that time.  Until then the existing tagging works just fine.

For backcountry camp sites tagging water is critical.  The first question after "where is it", is "will there be water", followed by "is that water potable".


Bottom line: please listen to other mappers.

_______________________________________________
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

Tod Fitch
On Jan 22, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

. . . Or other places:

tourism=camp_site
drinking_water=no
toilets=yes


At the first level of tagging these can be seen as attributes of the amenity, much like opening hours, website, etc..
If detailed tagging is done (e.g. individual camp pads), then the individual water taps can be mapped at that time.  Until then the existing tagging works just fine.

For backcountry camp sites tagging water is critical.  The first question after "where is it", is "will there be water", followed by "is that water potable".


Bottom line: please listen to other mappers.

For campsites there was a discussion a while back and the wiki has some of the results including how to tag water at an individual pitch:


Potability of the water was not, however, considered.


_______________________________________________
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 Pieren
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:16 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).

In fact, the proposal passed the wiki vote ONLY because the three people voted no at the
last minute.  If it were not for those 'no' votes, the proposal would have failed.

All that shows in part how dysfunctional the wiki vote system is.

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