[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

Le 21. 08. 17 à 10:26, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 18. Aug 2017, at 22:33, Moritz <osm at moritzmueller.ee> wrote:
>> I think it's a language issue here.
>> Here in Germany these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually the German word for it) with proper signs.
> suction point translates more accurately to "Absaugstelle", which doesn't necessarily mean "dry hydrant", but might be maybe the same in some cases (not sure).

It isn't a word-only problem. The example of François shows that we can 
meet an object "which delivers water to fight fire" without being able 
to differentiate between with pressure <> without pressure.

Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example 
if you have anyway a pump with you).
Another day, another contributor will add additional information.

If type=pond is depreciated in favor of a exclusive use of suction, what 
must use the 1st contributor when a meet François's object ?
emergency=fire_hydrant_or_suction_point + fixme=emergency depending on 
the pressure ?
This is not a progress.
The object becomes unusable as long as the doubt is not removed.
Or worse the contributor will choose one of the 2 tag. error rate 50%.

Given the lack of agreement on this point, I would like this sentence 
not to be part of the proposal. :
"fire_hydrant:type=pond will be deprecated because it will be replaced 
by emergency=suction_point"
If necessary, it could be replaced by "type=pond is controversial. some 
think it solves a problem on the ground, others think that it is 
necessary to use exclusively suction_point"
This do not prevent to use water_source and other tag which reduces the 
useless differences between both emergency tag.
Nothing prevents to make another proposal to specifically deal with this 
point but right now the disagreement seems important without a perfect 
solution.
It would be fair to not include a controversial point among the other 
unanimous points.
This split would make it easy to vote the many other quality 
improvements of the proposition that meet the unanimity.