<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 14/01/2015 12:01 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.4863.1421154085.2793.tagging@openstreetmap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><div class="moz-txt-sig">Message: 2
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100
From: Pieren <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com"><pieren3@gmail.com></a>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"><tagging@openstreetmap.org></a>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Message-ID:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CAPT3zJr3DJV_S0kRxhdMb4JGYV_9zTyigOWUx+1nhcMX-A7qjw@mail.gmail.com"><CAPT3zJr3DJV_S0kRxhdMb4JGYV_9zTyigOWUx+1nhcMX-A7qjw@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kotya.lists@gmail.com"><kotya.lists@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</div></pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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</pre>
</blockquote>
<big><br>
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. <br>
<br>
1) amenity=drinking_water <br>
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? <br>
<br>
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. </big><br>
<big><br>
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.<big> </big>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? <br>
</big><big><br>
3) alternatives ? <br>
amenity=water_point with sub tags<br>
portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/<br>
temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling<br>
tap=yes/no<br>
flow_rate=l/m<br>
spigot=plain/threaded <br>
? others?</big><br>
<big><br>
Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus<br>
water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/? </big><br>
<big>Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a
level should be a new discussion. </big><br>
<br>
==========================<br>
<big>There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very
basic level, are 'we' tagging <u>what things are</u> ... or <u>what
they are used for</u>? Both have been used, but there should be
a fundamental decision to go one way or the other.</big><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>