[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
kotya.lists at gmail.com
Tue Nov 11 21:19:33 UTC 2014
Thanks for your comments.
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.
As I already said in the previous email, I think the only solution to such
situations is a tag standardization activity, clearly developed and
publicized. As long as tagging and tag documentation is completely free,
left to the logic and good will of each individual mapper, you cannot
expect the software to behave "reasonably" on each tag combination. The tag
combination you mention is an obvious conflict, but the software probably
cannot analyse each combination of tags, however clear it may be to a human.
Let's park this discussion for the moment.
*I see the breakdown:*
> for dogs
> 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
OK, so where does a water tap with unknown water quality land in your
> Far better to use "nonpotable_water".
A "non-potable water" introduces two problems:
1) a mapper may not know if the water is potable or not; there may be no
way to check it or he may not be able to do it; still adding a water source
2) I don't like creating too many top-level tags. I could live with it,
however, as long as we don't have a better defined tagging system. But the
previous item is still an issue.
> "nonpotable_water" and "drinking_water" also have no overlap, which is
> "drinking_water" and "water_tap" overlap.
So what's your suggestion for a water source of unknown potability?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging