[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Eric H. Christensen]

On August 17, 2017 11:38:10 AM EDT, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
>On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
>>
>> That's not really what's being discussed here.  A non-pressurized
>> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all.  It would require a
>fire
>> engine to suck the water out.  It does not look like a traditional
>fire
>> hydrant at all.
>there are always exceptions. not far from me, there's a traditional
>hydrant of the type normally used with pressurized systems, but
>it's sourced from a pond. the reason is that the pond is elevated, some
>distance from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
>when it's not in use for the usual reasons.
>
>richard
>
>-- 
>rwelty at averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Then that is a pressurized system and doesn't require drafting (there is gravity at work if the pond is elevated above the connection point).

The whole point of a dry hydrant is to make drafting easier. Drafting is the pulling of water up by use of a pump.  If the water is coming down then you don't need to pull the water and can do damage  to many water systems if you do.

Eric