<HTML><BODY><div><img src="cid:EfgY@jemHPoe1.zx9Z3O2a" style="width: 259px;"> <img src="cid:72lN@12pWetsI.YrHTd3Nv" style="width: 180px;"><br><br> <blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #0857A6; margin:10px; padding:0 0 0 10px;">Monday, September 7, 2020 4:23 AM -05:00 from Tobias Zwick <osm@westnordost.de>:<br> <div id=""><div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><style type="text/css"></style><div><div id="style_15994706370961846744_BODY"><div class="cl_496242"><p>The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear why Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no.</p><p>Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:</p><ul><li>1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) -> drinking_water=yes</li></ul><ul><li>2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated -> drinking_water=no</li></ul><p>But what about these?</p><ul><li>3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with toxic substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine. </li></ul><ul><li>4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled water.</li></ul><p>In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with certainty record is that there is no official information about it whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve this, but there is also case 4.</p><p>In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations separately when necessary.</p><p> </p><p>Cheers<br>Tobias</p><div class="moz-cite-prefix_mr_css_attr">On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,</div><div>we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.</div><div> </div><div>Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes)</div><div>that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable sign"?</div><div> </div><div>drinking_water:signed=no ?</div> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader_mr_css_attr"> </fieldset><pre class="moz-quote-pre_mr_css_attr" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated_mr_css_attr" href="//e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aTagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext_mr_css_attr" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre></blockquote></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>Tagging mailing list<br><a href="/compose?To=Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></div></div></div></div></blockquote> <div> </div><div data-signature-widget="container"><div data-signature-widget="content"><div> </div></div></div><div> </div></div></BODY></HTML>