[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

[Warin]

On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren 
> <pieren3 at gmail.com> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - 
> Voting - Water tap Message-ID: 
> <CAPT3zJr3DJV_S0kRxhdMb4JGYV_9zTyigOWUx+1nhcMX-A7qjw at mail.gmail.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 
> AM, Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
> My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing
> "amenity=drinking_water" tag. And we get enough complains from
> newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion.
> The "amenity=drinking_water" tag is old and widely used (82.000 in
> taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource
> which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the
> question referenced from the "help" site ([1]). I fully agree that we
> need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag
> "amenity=drinking_water". I did not follow the whole discussion but
> when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first
> sentence in the wiki says "This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly
> usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water
> taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be
> further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. " A bit later, there is
> a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where
> is the difference between "man_made=water_tap"+"drinking_water=yes"
> and "amenity=drinking_water". And nowhere it says if "drinking_water"
> subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about
> potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a
> tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the
> lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older
> tag. Why not but then tell it clearly.
>
> Pieren

I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the 
commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is 
coming to a close.

1) amenity=drinking_water
The wiki has photos of blubbers - one tap. And that is what I have used 
it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with 
portable=no ... I'd like it changed to only reference blubbers or things 
that are meant for the human to directly consume water.  But that is 
another discussion! And should be raised as a separate issue/subject to 
attract attention to it on that topic ONLY. amenity=drinking_water needs 
clarification. Without any other tag for a tap .. well I'll use it 
inappropriately as I have no other choice... is that a solution that is 
acceptable? Or should I use amenity=water_point .. though it is not 
intended for large quantities of water?

2) Taps. They need a tag. There is nothing suitable. Sub tags for them 
have been discussed and there is a lot in them .. but they again should 
be a separate topic/subject as they could be applied to other water 
objects.

Voting 'no' on taps .. to me means we should not tag taps. May be I 
should not map blubbers either ! Not clear to me what 
amenity=drinking_water means exactly? And then there is the old chestnut 
of highway=footway and highway=path.  That is a ridiculous thing .. and 
to justify it saying it is historical is no justification at all.If the 
tag tap is better then why reject it due to a less suitable tag being 
present? Just so the less suitable tag continues?

3) alternatives ?
  amenity=water_point with sub tags
portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/
temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling
tap=yes/no
flow_rate=l/m
spigot=plain/threaded
? others?

Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus
water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/?
Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a level 
should be a new discussion.

==========================
There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very basic level, 
are 'we' tagging _what things are_ ... or _what they are used for_? Both 
have been used, but there should be a fundamental decision to go one way 
or the other.








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150114/1ca47028/attachment-0001.html>