<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2014 10:14 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.15263.1417648452.3429.tagging@openstreetmap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:13:43 +0100
From: Kotya Karapetyan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kotya.lists@gmail.com"><kotya.lists@gmail.com></a>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"><tagging@openstreetmap.org></a>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Message-ID:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CAK2dJ-zgMP9YL0BPJTknd+Bp+fjq4nqFggvKG9e5_8AZyqBGng@mail.gmail.com"><CAK2dJ-zgMP9YL0BPJTknd+Bp+fjq4nqFggvKG9e5_8AZyqBGng@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
in analogy: "water:effervescent" (or ~:sparkling)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I don't mind using the word "effervescent"; however: is there any
recommendation that we should use as "simple" words as possible, to achieve
the above goals 1 and 3? I know this for scientific papers and am trying to
stick to it in all inherently international situations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I believe that "water_source:sparkling" is not the same as
"water:sparkling", because it is the water that is sparkling, not the water
source.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I get your point. However, I don't think that switching the namespace is a
good solution since it breaks encapsulation. Interesting, you didn't make
this remark about "water_source=potable", though it's similar. Anyway, what
about adding
water_source:water_property = sparkling,
and allow a combination similar to multiple highway lanes, e.g.
"water_source:water_property = sparkling | radioactive" ?
Again, I'd like to go level-wise:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">what is it? water source is it potable? yes/no/conditional why is it
non-potable? compromised/designated why conditional? needs boiling etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
"needs boiling" is not the next sublevel of
1 potable=no
2 why-non-potable=compromised
it is another way of looking at this ("how can the water be made potable")
3 would be something like: what is the concentration of the contamination,
what type of contamination is there, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sorry, I think I expressed myself badly by having mixed alternatives and
levels. "needs boiling" should explain the value "conditional", not
"why-non-potable". Similarly, your data about concentration and type of the
contamination would explain the value "potable=no"
In principle, details regarding the kind of water source could be provided
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
interpretating the data, when there is an object "amenity=fountain" than it
is clear that the water_source:type is a fountain, no need to duplicate
this information in a nested water_source sub-tag.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Clear. However what if another top-level tag is missing? One could use
water_source alone (if I understand correctly, OSM doesn't enforce any
combination of tags). Therefore it should be possible to write all
properties within this tag. But of course, the software can help the mapper
by adding the reasonable tags when the user chooses amenity=fountain.
It looks like we have covered most of the necessary topics. I still see one
gap: what about water drinkable for animals but unsuitable for humans? I
suggest adding another value like "water_source=conditional +
water_source:conditional=animals_only". However I suggest discussing the
remaining questions during voting and or later. The main conclusions I
propose to vote on are:
- deprecate the tag "amenity=drinking_water"
- introduce new top-level key "water_source"
- the values will be "potable", "nonpotable", "yes" (for unknown potability)
- introduce the optional subkey "water_source:potable" with the values
"yes", "conditional"
- introduce the optional subkey "water_source:water_properties" with the
cheers,
Kotya
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<big>For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a
river, lake, spring etc... <br>
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it
comes from) but its purity... <br>
<br>
So I'd think the key should be <br>
<br>
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and
'unknown' ('yes' does not imply anything in the context of water
purity nor water source). <br>
<br>
That key can be added to rives, lakes, drinking fountains etc etc
.. no changes are required for present tags. Simply the additional
information can be added. </big><br>
<br>
--------------------------------<br>
<big>Animals? I think most of them make their own assessment of
water purity. And different animals probably have differing
requirements for water purity. </big><br>
</body>
</html>