[Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

European Water Project europeanwaterproject at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 11:18:19 UTC 2020


Hello,

1)
free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers  is
very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as
free_water=yes

2)
yes, amenity=cafe, amenity=bar, amenity=restaurant are just examples. I
wanted to give context for the purpose of the discussion.  Our NGO will
contribute to the creation of a network of cafes and restaurants willing to
refill water bottles all over Europe.

3) carafe was a suggestion, happy to entertain any more self explicit
suggestions.

4) yes, I have had extensive conversations with the Refill headquarters..
Their board will not entertain an open data model.

Best regards,

Stuart

PS : I hope





>
>    6. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>       (Jake Edmonds)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:06:58 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>         restaurant
> Message-ID: <LyTMiWb--3-2 at tutanota.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.smale at xs4all.nl:
>
> >
> > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> >
> >
> +1
>
> And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
>
> > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including
> pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative
> illustration or example.
> >
> Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
>
>
> > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
> not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
> other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So
> free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people...
> >
> And water is not always served in a carafe.
>
> And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even
> "carafe" word
> is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/ecab19bc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:36 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> Message-ID: <6433c9f7-7adf-a9d0-b1c8-1d274daaa493 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> the Rio de la Plata, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>
> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> is now coming back.
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> has been the case in OSM until now:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> "mouth" of the "river")
>
> and
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>
> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.
>
> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> believe this is inline with guidance
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>
> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:28:30 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP_2vPjPPhR035Z0LeTpUzc_v9q6BpDqRwFCQQxw-u2EH5z68w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
> natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
> the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
> environment.
>
> The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
> is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.
>
> Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
> the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
> too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
> their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.
>
> I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
> reasonable solution to be discussed.
>
> I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
> would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
> outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
> or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
> with other projects.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> > the Rio de la Plata, here
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
> >
> > This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> > is now coming back.
> >
> > According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> > defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> > Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> > has been the case in OSM until now:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> > "mouth" of the "river")
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
> >
> > This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> > especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> > inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> > coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal
> city.
> >
> > One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> > the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> > believe this is inline with guidance
> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
> >
> > I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> > comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> > but this is still at the proposal stage.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:36:13 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP_2vPjRZMxJc+nsVAe_Hp_2oy+1V6AU7qO0btuV9LK+Te3ymg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Ok, I checked the changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390
>
> I doesn't look like the user who did the revert of the change was
> intending to edit-war, but was instead responding to the appearance of
> the Rio de la Plata being rendered as land on some map styles.
>
> This always happens for the first few hours up to a couple days after
> a change to the coastline, because the ocean shapefiles used to render
> the marine water environment are only updated once a day at most (and
> if the coastline is broken it will not update every day).
>
> I responded to the changeset to explain this.
>
> Keeping the river area while also moving the coastline will prevent
> this visual bug from occuring.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 1/13/20, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
> > natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
> > the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
> > environment.
> >
> > The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
> > is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.
> >
> > Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
> > the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
> > too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
> > their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.
> >
> > I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
> > reasonable solution to be discussed.
> >
> > I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
> > would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
> > outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
> > or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
> > with other projects.
> >
> > - Joseph Eisenberg
> >
> > On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> >> the Rio de la Plata, here
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
> >>
> >> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> >> is now coming back.
> >>
> >> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> >> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> >> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> >> has been the case in OSM until now:
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> >> "mouth" of the "river")
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
> >>
> >> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> >> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> >> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> >> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal
> >> city.
> >>
> >> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> >> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> >> believe this is inline with guidance
> >> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
> >>
> >> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> >> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> >> but this is still at the proposal stage.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> >>
> >> Bye
> >> Frederik
> >>
> >> --
> >> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
> E008°23'33"
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:34 +0100
> From: Jake Edmonds <jake_edmonds at me.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>         restaurant
> Message-ID: <4B4003FE-2F75-4F0C-815B-8D73494FC08E at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I’ve heard of places not refilling water bottles due to hygiene reasons
> (whether that is a concern or not is a separate discussion) but will give a
> glass of water to whoever asks. And on the opposite side, there are places
> that will refill bottles but won’t give a glass a water.
>
> > On 13 Jan 2020, at 11:06, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.smale at xs4all.nl:
> > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
> > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including
> pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative
> illustration or example.
> > Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> > amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
> >
> > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
> not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
> other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So
> free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people...
> > And water is not always served in a carafe.
> >
> > And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even
> "carafe" word
> > is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/bfc26cdc/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 70
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/fd7ca8f6/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list