[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - spring:name

[Stefan Tauner]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 10:21:13 +0100
Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com> wrote:

> you can try this Overpass query on Italy to find some real example:
> 
> node
>   [amenity=drinking_water][name~Fonte]
>   ({{bbox}});
> out;
> 
> Please feel free to find an helpful example to help me complete the
> proposal.

Hi,

I still fail to see what problem the proposal tries to solve exactly. I
have looked at about 15 of these examples (inside and outside of
residential areas). Most of them don't use the spring tag at all and
don't have a node tagged as spring nearby either. Some do have
natural=spring tagged together with amenity=drinking_water and the name.
My conclusion is that what is tagged is actually the spring and the tap
in the same location. This is the most common use case in my area as
well (where the tap is often just a piece of pipe).

If there is enough distance to warrant two nodes, for the spring and
the tap, respectively, why do we need to add the name of the source
spring?
In that case the name is already on the spring node and it is rather
obvious what the source is (the spring nearby). It would make more
sense to map the pipeline from the spring to the tap IMHO.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner