[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Thu Mar 6 12:34:53 UTC 2014

I was using the surface tag with water as an example of something you would
not do. Surface is a tag for highways that tells if the highway surface is
paved, unpaved, concrete, asphalt, whatever. You would never use the tags
natural=water and surface=concrete together to tag a single object. They
simply do not belong together. That's all I was meaning to say.

I have no problem with either answer actually; drinking_water=yes is fine,
as is drinkable=yes. Someone else suggested potable=yes — that's fine too.
Potable is an accepted English term which means drinkable. It's just a
question of which you prefer and which works best with what is already in
use in OSM.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Pottier <vpottier at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140306/1e52013d/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list