[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Viking viking81 at tin.it
Thu Aug 31 22:54:59 UTC 2017


@Francois
rating:water -1. It is not intuitive. Against simplicity that we are trying to achieve.

@Marc
flow_rate should be used for the nominal flow capacity. This is enough for firefightening purposes and it is the only data normally declared by water companies. For example [0] specifies standard test conditions to measure nominal flow rate. In this sense flow_rate is more appropriate.

I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't have a type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive solution.
Considering that in some countries pressurized hydrants are not distuinguishable from not pressurized ones, I'm starting to think that the only way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
- hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the information.
- suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and pump.
I would prefer to have only pressurized hydrants in emergency=fire_hydrant, but there are too many cases that can't be easily handled.
Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of water_source=pond.

[0] http://www.nwwsd.org/media/4591/AppendixB.pdf

Best regards,
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail รจ stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the Tagging mailing list