<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/10/22 22:44, Illia Marchenko
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM2KGSOUtxJ6v-pajCMPJt+8h1sMtBsL=2DFoSU-hmdXhq9NQg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Alternative to the sport=soccer is sport=british_football
because "football" is context specific, and "American
football", "Australian football", "Canadian football", "Gaelic
football" exists. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In parts of Britain 'football' is rugby ... <br>
</p>
<p>For some people in Australia 'football' is soccer, others rugby,
others AFL (OSM 'australian_football'). <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM2KGSOUtxJ6v-pajCMPJt+8h1sMtBsL=2DFoSU-hmdXhq9NQg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">ср, 5 окт. 2022 г., 13:52
martianfreeloader <<a
href="mailto:martianfreeloader@posteo.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">martianfreeloader@posteo.net</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">There is
a broad consensus that the language for OSM tags is
British <br>
English. Using a non-BE word for a tag because it is used
in Australia <br>
while a synonymous BE word exists, would be the same using
a Xhosa, <br>
Portuguese or Korean word, just because it exists.<br>
<br>
I know there are a few exceptions like sport=soccer,
footway=sidewalk <br>
and sidewalk=*, but I think this kind of exceptions
shouldn't be made <br>
without a very good reason.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05/10/2022 12:04, Warin wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote:<br>
>> Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết:<br>
>>> I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag
being promoted? Which <br>
>>> appears to be an American English term for a
British English drinking <br>
>>> fountain. Why promote another term, and use
an American English term. <br>
>>> What was wrong with calling a drinking
fountain a drinking fountain?<br>
>><br>
>> To clarify, "bubbler" is a distinctively regional
term in Boston, <br>
>> Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Elsewhere, it's
either "drinking <br>
>> fountain" or "water fountain". [1]<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> No. 'Bubbler' is also used in Australia. And possibly
elsewhere is the <br>
> world.<br>
> <br>
> -------------------------<br>
> <br>
> In England it looks like a "Drinker Water Fountain"
spurts water <br>
> upwards. There are some with elevated outlets
described as water bottle <br>
> filler, but are at a height that is convenient to
drink from with flow <br>
> rates to suit direct human consumption.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Things that direct water downwards? And have flow
rates greater than <br>
> convenient for human consumption? To me, these are
'taps'.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The problem?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 1) identify feature that provided drinkable water -
fairly basic. At the <br>
> moment the common amenity=drinking_water does this ..
or the secondary <br>
> tag of drinking_water=yes.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This fails to consider the supply of water that is not drinkable
... thus complicating the tagging. <br>
</p>
<p>So I have revised this in another message.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>