Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

bkil
I've separated the proposal for non-inclusive drink refilling from the
drinking water cases. Anticipating a discussion, I'm replying to part
of Tom's most recent insights in the new RFC here (unfortunately, I've
copied some extra parts there too that is relevant here instead):

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039520.html



> It does not need much language either, handing the bottle and
> and a friendly look are usually self-explanatory and sufficient.
> I would support tagging the free tap-water refilling campaign as it is apparently a litter-avoiding
> idea and presumably ground-verifiable
>

The owncup=* campaign sounds like an idea to combat waste as well.
However, if a shop is part of both owncup & water-refill campaigns at
the same time, handing over your bottle may result in unwanted
consequences like getting beer in it!

So you vote for the possibility that no extra tag/description should
be added along `drinking_water=yes` (instead of =ask/on_demand) to
indicate that staff is handing out water on request and not a vending
machine/tap?

> (by some sticker or so at the door?).
>

It is definitely verifiable as all of these venues have staff that was
instructed by management to serve water to all, so asking any of them
should yield a unified answer. Some of the dozens of campaigns listed
have printable stickers, but note that they should all be different.

The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM
itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this
visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight
various tag combinations, like drinking_water on bars, restaurants,
etc., though that is not ideal. Verification could also be made more
difficult, because if I see drinking_water=yes on a pub, I need to
first start looking for a vending machine/fountain/tap, if not found,
ask for an accessible vending machine/fountain/tap from staff, if they
don't know anything about those, then I ask whether they could
manually refill my container. This sounds a bit more awkward than
ideal.

> As a side note, I am surprised it needs such a campaign. I was never refused a filling of my water
> bottle, in various countries. Not in a pub while hiking, nor in an airport cafe (behind security
> where carrying water is not allowed).
> tom
>

Although nobody would deny you a glass of water on a hot summer day if
you were dangerously dehydrated, not every restaurant would like to
degrade their atmosphere to a pass-through house by lines of
freeloaders if they are situated at a busy location. Those who
volunteer to join such a campaign anticipate this traffic and educate
their staff to welcome all passer-by as a matter of business.

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

dieterdreist


Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]>:


The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM
itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this
visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight
various tag combinations, like drinking_water on bars, restaurants,
etc., though that is not ideal. Verification could also be made more
difficult, because if I see drinking_water=yes on a pub, I need to
first start looking for a vending machine/fountain/tap, if not found,
ask for an accessible vending machine/fountain/tap from staff, if they
don't know anything about those, then I ask whether they could
manually refill my container.


I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For one it might be up to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond to your request (and could depend whether you have already consumed something there, know the barkeeper, are accompagnied by babies or children, the staff has a good day or not, etc.). There are also places that offer a drinking water tap with plastic cups or water bottles so you can serve yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible indoor fountain: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg ), and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending on their discretion. How will it be distinguished?

Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a fountain is generally accessible 24/7. This can be seen from the data (combination with what), but it might be safer to explicitly use distinct tagging (unsure myself).

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

Philip Barnes
In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236

Phil (trigpoint)

On 1 October 2018 10:11:08 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]>:


The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM
itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this
visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight
various tag combinations, like drinking_water on bars, restaurants,
etc., though that is not ideal. Verification could also be made more
difficult, because if I see drinking_water=yes on a pub, I need to
first start looking for a vending machine/fountain/tap, if not found,
ask for an accessible vending machine/fountain/tap from staff, if they
don't know anything about those, then I ask whether they could
manually refill my container.


I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For one it might be up to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond to your request (and could depend whether you have already consumed something there, know the barkeeper, are accompagnied by babies or children, the staff has a good day or not, etc.). There are also places that offer a drinking water tap with plastic cups or water bottles so you can serve yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible indoor fountain: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg ), and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending on their discretion. How will it be distinguished?

Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a fountain is generally accessible 24/7. This can be seen from the data (combination with what), but it might be safer to explicitly use distinct tagging (unsure myself).

Cheers,
Martin

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

dieterdreist


Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 14:54 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <[hidden email]>:
In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236



this is definitely not the default situation worldwide, but would it prevent you from adding some of the proposed tags in the UK, given that legal defaults which are not visible on the ground shall not be tagged explicitly?

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

bkil
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
Thanks for the link. The situation was the same in Hungary between
1998-2009. As of 2018, it is not a legal obligation, thus it is up to
the owner to decide whether they offer tap water for free. The
reasoning is probably that overheads, dish washing and service is not
at all free, though most "mature" places "usually"  provide water if
asked nicely.

However, do observe the exact wording in the linked article:

>>All licensed premises in England and Wales are required by law to provide "free potable water" to their customers upon request.<<

This should be interpreted as drinking_water=customers, not
drinking_water=yes. As mentioned previously, we could start a table in
the wiki to document country wide defaults. It is realistic to assume
that users are able to cross check between such a table with the full
OSM geo database. This would greatly reduce redundancy.

We are badly in a need of such a mechanism anyway, because there are
many tags which are not very useful in many parts of the world. Just
looking at the forms of the iD editor, I can see many examples. One is
that public smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in Hungary
and many other countries, so amenities default to smoking=no (mostly
at designated outside areas only). I have yet to see a restaurant that
declines to pack my meal for takeaway=* if I can't consume it on
premise, but it may be different in other countries. And then let's
not open the can of worms of default road maxspeed=*
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 1 October 2018 10:11:08 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM
>>> itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this
>>> visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight
>>> various tag combinations, like drinking_water on bars, restaurants,
>>> etc., though that is not ideal. Verification could also be made more
>>> difficult, because if I see drinking_water=yes on a pub, I need to
>>> first start looking for a vending machine/fountain/tap, if not found,
>>> ask for an accessible vending machine/fountain/tap from staff, if they
>>> don't know anything about those, then I ask whether they could
>>> manually refill my container.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For one it might be up to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond to your request (and could depend whether you have already consumed something there, know the barkeeper, are accompagnied by babies or children, the staff has a good day or not, etc.). There are also places that offer a drinking water tap with plastic cups or water bottles so you can serve yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible indoor fountain: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg ), and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending on their discretion. How will it be distinguished?
>>
>> Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a fountain is generally accessible 24/7. This can be seen from the data (combination with what), but it might be safer to explicitly use distinct tagging (unsure myself).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

bkil
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
> I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For one it might be up
> to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond to your request (and could depend whether
> you have already consumed something there, know the barkeeper, are accompagnied by babies or
> children, the staff has a good day or not, etc.).
>

This proposal is for tagging those premises who are *willing* to
provide free tap water unconditionally and who at the same time are
willing to advertise the said practice publicly.

There are various movements that can be joined. Also, the next
movement could very well be started on OpenStreetMap itself -
volunteers could refer to OSM when asking the owner for consent or the
owners themselves can add this information given a user friendly form.
This could also result in more mapping activity in general.

> There are also places that offer a drinking water tap with plastic cups or water bottles so you can serve
> yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible indoor fountain:
> https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg ),
> and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending on their discretion. How will it be distinguished?
>

Well, my original proposal strives to differentiate this with
drinking_water=yes (for taps) and drinking_water=ask (if given by
staff), but you are the only one to support such a distinction up to
now. Others in this thread would like to use the same tagging for both
cases. Could you please give a bit reasoning regarding pro & contra of
making this distinction?

> Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a fountain is generally accessible 24/7.
> This can be seen from the data (combination with what), but it might be safer to explicitly use distinct tagging (unsure myself).
>

If we add drinking_water=* tags to a given premise (together with
amenity=pub) on the same entity (node or area), it is expected that
the opening hour is the same. This means that if the pub is only open
between 18-24h, then we should expect that the drinking fountain will
not be accessible at noon or at any other time when the pub is closed.
If the tap resides in an open space, that means that opening_hours is
not shared between the two and they should be stored as separate
entities in OSM, one way for the area of the pub and its opening hour
(or a node somewhere within its boundaries) and another node
separately for the tap at its approximate location.

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by bkil


sent from a phone

On 5. Oct 2018, at 21:12, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have yet to see a restaurant that
declines to pack my meal for takeaway=* if I can't consume it on
premise


I believe initially the idea of this tag was takeaway=only 
then came the preset webforms.
a common combination for takeaway=yes is drive-though=no

Cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

bkil
Well, drive_through=yes should implicate takeaway=yes and
drive_through=only should implicate takeaway=only in real life, so
takeaway=* is redundant in such a case.

Also, it is strange that takeaway is not mentioned on the wiki page of
drive_through.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_through
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_in

Indeed the wiki page describes places that should be tagged with takeaway=only:

>>The key takeaway=* is mostly used with the value yes on eateries to indicate that customers can purchase a meal to be consumed elsewhere. Other values in use are only and no. In American English, this is known as 'take-out', 'to-go', and 'carry-out'.<<
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:takeaway

So `takeaway=yes` is being mistagged worldwide and is really meant to
flag a kind of fast_food outlet where you can not consume your food in
place, or at least there are no chairs to sit on? This should have
been probably put under another top level tag, something like
shop=meal/fast_food/etc.

Or should `takeaway=no` be understood simply as a place that does not
regularly keep plastic containers for purchases (though they would
probably pack away food into our own containers), and `takeaway=yes`
means that packaging materials are available?
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 5. Oct 2018, at 21:12, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have yet to see a restaurant that
> declines to pack my meal for takeaway=* if I can't consume it on
> premise
>
>
>
> I believe initially the idea of this tag was takeaway=only
> then came the preset webforms.
> a common combination for takeaway=yes is drive-though=no
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/takeaway=yes#combinations
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

Mateusz Konieczny-3
6. Oct 2018 22:04 by [hidden email]:

Also, it is strange that takeaway is not mentioned on the wiki page of
drive_through.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_through
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_in


Feel free to edit page and add it.

 

Indeed the wiki page describes places that should be tagged with takeaway=only:


I disagree with that.

 

>>The key takeaway=* is mostly used with the value yes on eateries to indicate that customers can purchase a meal to be consumed elsewhere.


Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that one may buy

food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.

 

So `takeaway=yes` is being mistagged worldwide and is really meant to
flag a kind of fast_food outlet where you can not consume your food in
place, or at least there are no chairs to sit on?


takeaway=only is supposed to cover places with only takeaway available.


Do you think that it should be explicitly mentioned in WIki description?


If yes, consider adding it to the description.


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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

bkil
>> Indeed the wiki page describes places that should be tagged with takeaway=only:
> I disagree with that.
>
> Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that one may buy
> food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.
>

I understand this part of the *wording* in the wiki, but do note that
the entities entered the database much sooner and this wiki was born
after the fact and the two may not be 100% consistent.

Your understanding of the tag as taking values of yes/no/only seems to
be the same as the understanding I had until last week and maybe half
of the world. In essence this tag signals whether literally taking
meals away is allowed. Actually as noted above, I'm stunned by the
vast popularity of takeaway=yes, because it is meaningless in this
interpretation (never heard of a restaurant before that does not allow
taking away your food). So all in all, this understanding boils down
to takeaway=yes/only, where yes is the default.

Unfortunately, the other half of the world (okay, maybe the
proportions are off) interprets takeaway=yes/no with takeaway=no as
default. In this case, takeaway=yes signals whether the venue is a
takeaway kind of place ('take-out', 'to-go', 'carry-out'). "Takeaway
kind of places" usually have no chairs and some may not have tables
either. They are more akin to shops, but they offer self-made fresh
products or meals, sometimes cooking on order. I do know a few of
these places nearby. I simply added amenity=fast_food to these without
second thought, but they are really a different category compared to
sit-down places.

> Do you think that it should be explicitly mentioned in WIki description?
> If yes, consider adding it to the description.
>

I have a habit of extending and improving the wiki whenever I can.
However, I only do this when I am absolutely sure that I am not doing
any damage, for example by altering meaning.

Retroactively clarifying an ambiguous, but widely used tag in the wiki
is not a good idea. I have a fear that a large number of users
misunderstood the meaning of this tag. I think we should introduce a
new tag in place of this one and start using that consistently,
otherwise we can never clean up the database.

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

Joseph Eisenberg
Re: 

never heard of a restaurant before that does not allow
taking away your food

In the USA, most fancy, sit-down restaurants will not allow customers to order food “to-go” (American for takeaway). You have to sit down and eat the meal on the premises. 

But if you don’t eat it all, they will probably provide a container to take it home

So there certainly are “takeaway=no” restaurants. Certainly any “reservations only” restaurant would fit this description.

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


sent from a phone

On 7. Oct 2018, at 13:43, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that one may buy

food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.



I’d say for takeaway=only you cannot stay and eat there, for ‚yes‘ it could be but is not implied. The only places I know like these are delivery places where you can also order and take it away on the premises.


Cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by bkil


sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:48, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have a habit of extending and improving the wiki whenever I can.
> However, I only do this when I am absolutely sure that I am not doing
> any damage, for example by altering meaning.
>
> Retroactively clarifying an ambiguous, but widely used tag in the wiki
> is not a good idea.


+1, usually it is safer to raise an issue on the talk page, you shouldn’t change or restrict the meaning of established tags.
What should be done is updating and improving the documentation according to actual, significant usage.

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