[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Moritz osm at moritzmueller.ee
Thu Aug 17 11:17:53 UTC 2017



> Suction point is probably not the right word in English. I haven't 
> found
> any specific idiomatic usage of this phrase, so it seems to just mean
> "point where suction is present/applied".

I think it suction_point is just a word by word translation of German 
word for it (point where to suck water).
Probably  some German guy started to tag dry hydrants as suction_points 
first so we are now have the term suction_points

Dry Hydrant seems a better fit
> for what you are discussing, do you agree?
> 
> http://www.nfpa.org/assets/gallery/firewise/operationWater/step3.htm
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant#Non-pressurized_.28dry.29_hydrants

 From the language point of view I agree.
But from the technical point I would not call it dry hydrant.

Because: when there is the word hydrant in it there will be people 
saying
Hey a dry hydrant is a subset of a hydrant. Which it is not. Because 
there will
not be pressurized water from the dry hydrant and the dry hydrant is not 
connected to
the water main.

And what about the fire water wells, how would you tag them? They are no 
dry  hydrants.
And I got the feedback that another tag for fire water wells are not 
needed because we can enhance the
emergency=suction_point.

With the emergency=suction_point we can group every point where 
firefighters can obtain non pressurized water (ponds, rivers, wells)
by attaching a pump together.

Maybe suction_point is not the right word for it. But I have no better 
idea at the moment ;)
Dry hydrants would only cover a few of them and we would need another 
tag for them.



More information about the Tagging mailing list