[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
vpottier at gmail.com
Thu Mar 6 08:18:28 UTC 2014
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
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 ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging