[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - spring:name

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at gmx.at
Mon Dec 28 16:22:42 UTC 2020


On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 16:45:05 +0100
Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com> wrote:

> Il giorno lun 28 dic 2020 alle ore 11:53 Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> ha scritto:  
> 
> >
> > can you please provide a real example where the tag is useful? You said
> > search for “Fonte” with overpass, but I would be interested in an example
> > which you know and can confirm, and describe. If there are pictures, even
> > better.
> >  
> 
> Look this tap:
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@44.487297,7.2575213,3a,90y,310.39h,81.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQDvVTMkwyWUkKuvUptk4Lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 

This is the respective node in OSM:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1490058077

Is there any (possibly yet unmapped) physical feature that should be in
OSM and could be confused with this node, i.e., that should be named
"Fonte Coralba" (instead)?

> it's water was sold in bottle:
> 
> http://www.acqueminerali.it/73871_acqua_minerale_coralba.htm
> 
> so it's the name of water...

It *was* the name of the water... it's out of production according to
that site since over 12 years. If that's the clearest example you can
come up with I don't think the proposal has a lot of merit TBH.
I see your point that it is not pedantically correct to name such taps
with the name of the supplying spring but OTOH if the spring is
actually known then I think there are way better ways to map this
relationship than the proposed tag (man_made=pipeline, a site relation,
or even some new relation type). If it is not known then naming the tap
is actually the best approach since it is what users expect to find
IMHO.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner



More information about the Tagging mailing list