[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
bryce2 at obviously.com
Fri Nov 7 03:02:04 UTC 2014
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> 2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 <sabas88 at gmail.com>:
>> I use
>> amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no
> I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-)
> IMHO we shouldn't tag like this.
> This is not really comparable to entrance=exit (as any exit physically
> might be used as an entrance as well, while drinking water is about water
> that is drinkable (implying more than once)).
Tagging "amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no" makes, at least, the WeTap
Android application show a false source of drinkable water.
It renders on many maps indistinguishable from potable water.
*I see the breakdown:*
for filling bottles
for humans without bottles
Assumed decorative unless also tagged as drinking_water
with a hose size specified (e.g. MHT or GHT for the United States, BSP
an attribute on something else, such as a campsite, cabin or toilet
> At graveyards (the main reason for my proposal), the water can clearly
be used for plant watering.
> The graveyards may be vast, and this mapping actually makes sense.
Because of the significant difference in outcomes to map viewers,
is a really poor choice.
As Martin Koppenhoefer said subtagging should refine a main tag, not oppose
I'll add that a tag should not leave the most critical element unsaid.
"water_tap" leaves the issue of potability to a subtag, and that's going
to lead to confusion. Far better to use "nonpotable_water".
"nonpotable_water" and "drinking_water" also have no overlap, which is
"drinking_water" and "water_tap" overlap.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging