[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 03:42:11 UTC 2014
On 4/12/2014 10:14 AM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:13:43 +0100
> From: Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.lists at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
> <CAK2dJ-zgMP9YL0BPJTknd+Bp+fjq4nqFggvKG9e5_8AZyqBGng at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
>>>> in analogy: "water:effervescent" (or ~:sparkling)
>>> 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.
>> I believe that "water_source:sparkling" is not the same as
>> "water:sparkling", because it is the water that is sparkling, not the water
> 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:
>>> what is it? water source is it potable? yes/no/conditional why is it
>>> non-potable? compromised/designated why conditional? needs boiling etc.
>> "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.
> 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
>> 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.
> 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
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river,
lake, spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and 'unknown'
('yes' does not imply anything in the context of water purity nor water
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.
Animals? I think most of them make their own assessment of water purity.
And different animals probably have differing requirements for water
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging