[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> 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:*

 amenity=drinking_water
    for dogs
    for filling bottles
    for humans without bottles

amenity=fountain
   Assumed decorative unless also tagged as drinking_water

amenity=nonpotable_water
    with a hose size specified (e.g. MHT or GHT for the United States, BSP
elsewhere)

drinking_water=yes/no
    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,
"drinking_water"
is a really poor choice.

As Martin Koppenhoefer said subtagging should refine a main tag, not oppose
it.
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
good.
"drinking_water" and "water_tap" overlap.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141106/0ae0643a/attachment.html>