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

[Dave Swarthout]

I agree with all of your points, Marc. I too was concerned with the
check_date tag and exchanged emails about it. We resolved it after a
fashion but I still have some questions about what the tag really means.
Your clarification sounds appropriate.

Agree as well with the hydrant_count and name tags. I've never seen a
hydrant with a name either and including the name tag in the wiki invites
people to create one.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:16 AM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171219/88df1205/attachment.html>