[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 17. 12. 17 à 18:35, Viking a écrit :
> I think we can go on refining hydrant tags, so I formally call a Request For Comments on this page [1].
> I remember that someone had pictures of different wrenches: can he/she add them to the table on [1]?

check_date tag is very imprecise. some use it to indicate when they 
checked the object on the ground without knowing what was checked. 
others use it to check the date of objects under construction in 
external sources without verification of the ground. I had proposed that 
we use operational_status:date which has the merit of making it clear 
that we are want to have the functional test. But this tag is not 
specific to hydrants, I'm not sure it should be added in the proposal of 
hydrants. I wrote to the author of the proposal operational_status but I 
did not get an answer. I will ask again and if it does not answer, I 
will propose to take over the proposal separately from the hydrants.
What do you think about ?

another think : imho we should remove name as "usefull combination".
I checked one by one many hydrants with this tag, I never found a 
hydrant with a real name. the fact that it's advisable led people to try 
to fill it with anything (I saw addresses, operators, flow rates, 
name=hydrant). if everyone agrees on this point, I do not think it is 
needed to vote on this point because the addition has not been voted on 
either, it is a minor modification of the wiki.

also we should remove fire_hydrant:count=* as "usefull combination"
we can keep it in the wiki sheet it-self for documentation of the 
meaning. but it's better to map 2 hydrants as 2 nodes and therefore 
fire_hydrant:count is imho not a usefull combination

Regards,
Marc