[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 28/02/2014 01:23, Dave Swarthout a écrit :
> @FrViPofm: I respectfully disagree. The drinking_water tag you refer 
> to is intended to indicate if drinking water is available at a certain 
> facility, not whether it is safe to drink. The values in your example 
> demonstrate this intention with "yes" and "no" comprising over 90% of 
> the values in existence.
>
> As for the example of toilets with drinkable=yes, I agree that this 
> might be confusing. In the Wiki it would be helpful to recommend that 
> the drinkable tag be used with amenities like fountain, spring, etc. 
> Using it as you did above is ambiguous. For example, one would not use 
> the term surface=concrete to describe a waterway. Although nothing 
> forbids you to use it that way, except common sense, it is intended to 
> be used to describe the surface of a highway. I would hope 
> drinkability would follow that sort of usage
>
> Dave.
I'm sorry but I have not understood the comparison with the surface tag. 
Maybe I'm not enough skilful in English. Maybe I'm not clever enough.
I don't understand actually the meaning of waterway=* + surface=*.
But I have no problem with :
* amenity=fountain + drinking_water=catched_spring (maybe a better 
translation is possible)
* amenity=fountain + drinking_water=not_surveyed (found two those days)
* amenity=shelter + drinking_water=rainwater_tank
* amenity=toilets + drinking_water=yes

"drinkable" and "drinking_water" are in the same semantic field, and are 
so near that I think it is painful, for mappers, for data consumers, to 
follow two tags.

So why maintaining two tags for saying the same thing : "here we can 
find more or less drinkable/potable water in such condition", one tag 
for "standalone" features, one for amenities ?
--
FrViPofm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140306/15ae334d/attachment.html>