[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Eric H. Christensen eric at christensenplace.us
Thu Aug 17 16:17:45 UTC 2017

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
>> engine to suck the water out.  It does not look like a traditional
>> 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.
>rwelty at averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org

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.


More information about the Tagging mailing list