[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
matkoniecz at gmail.com
Thu Nov 13 09:02:37 UTC 2014
I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
implications of amenity=drinking_water.
2014-11-13 9:39 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.lists at gmail.com>:
> Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
> information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
> different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go
> for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability
> Taking into account everything said, I would propose:
> 1) To introduce a key "water_source".
> 2) The values will be: potable, nonpotable, yes (or is
> "potability_unknown" better?)
> 3) Deprecate "amenity=drinking_water" in favour of "water_source=potable"
> 4) All other related tags remain as is:
> and define the type of water source with more detail.
> 5) Man_made=water_tap can still be introduced, to accompany
> man_made=water_well. However, the main purpose of this proposal is served
> by the most general water_source tag.
> I do understand that this goes somewhat out of the existing scheme.
> - Can you propose a better solution, not just criticise the proposal
> (criticism is very welcome, but please try to bring the discussion closer
> to the agreement)?
> - I think that the existing situation with the top-level
> "amenity=drinking_water" is a rather poor solution, even if widely used.
> Once again, please take into account that OSM was originally introduced in
> developed countries, thus the established tagging system comes from their
> realities. OSM is now gaining popularity in developing countries, and the
> tagging system is bound to be dynamic if we don't want to end up with a
> very low quality map (with either non-tagged features or with dozens of
> custom or wrong tags). Also keep in mind that mappers from developing
> countries are not extremely likely to participate in this English-language
> Finally, I would advocate the start of discussion to standardize the
> tagging system, make it more uniform and thus mapper- and
> consumer-friendly. Just keep it in mind please when considering this
> specific proposal.
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
>> "If you can only chose between potable and non-potable" - in this case
>> tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value.
>> 2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
>>> On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100
>>> From: Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> <pieren3 at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31
>>> <CAPT3zJr3gsQAFYxeWXvnuYc2n_7tR-Git3JpuortmAUf2a18Kg at mail.gmail.com> <CAPT3zJr3gsQAFYxeWXvnuYc2n_7tR-Git3JpuortmAUf2a18Kg at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com> <matkoniecz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged.
>>> +1 We don't tag what is unknown. Pierre
>>> 'We' know there is water there. That water can be used.
>>> If you can only chose between potable and non-potable, then you should
>>> chose non-potable. Filtering and treating non-potable water makes it
>>> potable .. I do this when in remote areas for my safety, particularly if
>>> I'm uncertain of the quality of the water. In some cases acess to water can
>>> be a life saver - thus it should be mapped no matter what the quality.
>>> Note change in Subject title - my appoliges for my error there.
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging