[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
kotya.lists at gmail.com
Sat Oct 18 21:20:30 UTC 2014
Sorry, I have missed the discussion due to my poor management of email
I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
the suggestion at
So this is fixed.
As for the clash with amenity=drinking_water: I see it, but I think there
is an advantage of having yet another tag:
- amenity=drinking_water can be used as an attribute where the presence
thereof is non-obvious. E.g., for amenity=toilets. A water_tap is a
separate object, and a combination amenity=water_tap + drinkable=yes would
provide for a more specific mapping, where appropriate.
- The combination drinking_water + drinkable=no is indeed quite confusing
and has already caused a few discussions (
water_tap would help clarify.
- amenity=drinking_water is not always a tap, it can be a fountain, a well,
a tap in a WC again; it can be used quite generally, without additional
thinking. In some cases, there may exist uncertainty as to how to tag a
feature, but it's certain that potable water is available there. This tag
fits well in such situations. water_tap provides similar clarity when the
object is clearly there but the mapper doesn't know the type of water. It
may be difficult to imagine the abundance of such situations for the West
Europeans and Americans; but I come from Russia, where this situation is
very typical. I've met it in other developing countries as well. Especially
in the warm countries it is important not to confuse a source of water with
potable water. Quite a few people I know from developed countries have
suffered badly because they didn't realise there was a difference.
- Map software often simply shows an icon without giving access to
additional attributes. In that case a user may have no chance of seeing
drinkable=no for drinking_water. The symbol for drinking_water —
is very clear, and the contradiction may lead to quite unfortunate
- What can a mapper do if he doesn't know the quality of water? 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
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, 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)).
> Also agree with Tobias, a water_tap would better fit into amenity.
> Frankly, I believe water_tap is too generic given that we already have
> established amenity=drinking_water for water taps that do emit drinking
> water. At this point if you don't want to create conflicts with existing
> tagging scheme, a water tap emitting water that is not drinkable (i.e. the
> stuff that remains for tagging when all taps with drinking water are tagged
> differently) could get a tag like amenity=raw_water or industrial_water.
> I would believe it is also highly unprobable that there will be a water
> tap for sewage water (there might be closures / valves of course, but this
> will likely not be something that we'll map, or if we did, it will be a
> subtag in some wastewater treatment / sewage tagging system and not in
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging