[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Moritz osm at moritzmueller.ee
Thu Aug 17 12:50:08 UTC 2017

> Hi all and thank you for those interesting developments
> My point is all about semantics and ease the mappers' work
> Like everyone, I agree to distinguish pressurized fire hydrants, and 
> "dry"
> hydrants like ones where a pump is required to get water.
> But not in favor of an additional value of emergency key.
> This will lead to extra large and cluttered like
> emergency=big_yellow_fire_hydrant and
> emergency=small_cap_covering_underground_valve
> It's really interesting both from mapper and consumer view to use 
> several
> keys to give pieces of information.

Ok, my understanding is you want to have only to categories:

* Pressurized water sources (fire hydrants)
* "dry" hydrants where a pump has to be brought to get water ("dry" 
hydrants or suction points or whatever tag it will be)

> Pressurized or not, there are connectorized pipes wich allow 
> firefighters
> to get water which have a given appearance on ground (barrel, 
> underground,
> pipe...)
> Even if it's not always pressurized, the design of such things is done 
> as
> to allow the water to flow under pressure (gravity, pumped or whatever) 
> and
> that's why I like to think "dry" and "pressurized" "hydrants" are all
> members of the same set of feature.

Then we should not call it hydrant, because the hydrant (by the meaning 
of the word) is something connected
to the water main ;)

> Otherwise, you have ponds, wells, which are open field water sources

But "dry" hydrants are always connected to other water sources like 
ponds, wells, water_tanks.
They are not isolated things on the field. So you have the "dry" hydrant 
which is next to a pond/lake/etc. and
connected to it.

When I'm understanding you right, you propose to put dry hydrants into 
same category like real hydrants.
Because the mappers can't distinguish between real and dry hydrants.
But then the problem what to do with the other variants of suction 
points (e.g. wells) persists.
Here in Germany there are wells which can look like dry hydrants. So the 
unexperienced mappers would put them
also in the hydrants category, according to your above statement.

This leads to no or little value of these information for the 
firefighters. When I have to decide where to get water
for the fire engine, I try to avoid using wells, ponds, lakes in first 
place. Just because the hazzle to get water
quickly is much bigger than just connecting the hose to the hydrant.

> In a second time, i respectably disagree (without shortening the good 
> work
> done) to namespaces keys suction_point:, fire_hydrant: and so on...
> In some cases they are redundant and don't ease the key name typing in
> editors without pressets.
> It may be great to don't encourage them, please.

You mean you disagree on on using something like suction_point:source=* 
and suction_point:position=* to further describe
the features of a given suction point/dry hydrant?

How would you attach the additional attributes to such a 
dry_hydrant/suction point when you just have 2 categories for more then 
2 items to be distinguished?

But I agree that we will somehow end up improving the tagging of 
hydrants/dry hydrants and stuff ;)


More information about the Tagging mailing list