[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Glom johan.j at goteborg.cc
Tue Jul 24 21:00:34 BST 2012


Ilari Kajaste wrote
> 
> On 13 July 2012 20:30, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist@> wrote:
>> 2012/7/13 Ilari Kajaste <ilari.kajaste@>:
> 
> 2) as a further definition for "amenity=drinking_water" either as 2a)
> quality attribute (e.g. "drinking_water=untreated") or as 2b) type
> attribute ("drinking_water=rainwater_tank" or
> "drinking_water=fountain")
> 
>     - Ilari Kajaste -
> 

I understand that the question asked by Martin was how to do the secondary
tagging on water supplies: 

if to use the adjective form drinkable/potable = *
or if to the noun form drinking_water = *

The adjective form suggests that it is an attribute and clearly asks of the
editor to fill in true/false.
The noun form suggests a the presence of drinking_water (and that is
supposed to be mapped by amenity=drinking_water). the pair
amenity=drinking_water and drinking_water=* suggests that there will follow
a more detailed description of the amenity (se Ilaris #2 above)

--
I have a bureaucratical suggestion, it has a pleasing symmetry but is
uneccesary long and do not really add any value.
water:quality=*

--
another thing, I have a question for Eugene Alvin Villar that wrote today
about potable. 
Is it so that potable is recognized as the "correct" word and if you here or
read drinkable it will suggest that the person writing it do not know the
correct word? Do that mean that potable and drinkable do not have different
meaning, more than potabel having a clear offical weight to it? That is,
drinkable and potable is not on some kind of scale of "potability"?



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/drinkable-vs-drinking-water-tp5716270p5718289.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the Tagging mailing list