[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pumps (wells and many other things)

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 02:26:11 UTC 2020

I oppose deprecating pump=powered, pump=manual, and pump=no. This is a
simple, clear system for use with water wells, and it is widely

1) Clarify use with man_made=water_well

Currently 88% of uses of pump=* are with man_made=water_well (the rest
are with amenity=drinking_water) and with the 3 values: pump=powered,
pump=manual, pump=no. This is a simple and intuitive system for
mapping wells in developing countries and rural areas.

Please clarify if you are asking mappers to add a separate
man_made=pump feature or if that should only be used when there is no
man_made=water_well feature.

Why should we drop the use of pump=powered, pump=manual, pump=no?
Distinguishing pump=powered, pump=manual is easy: you can hear the
sound of an electric or diesel motor, and a manual pump has an obvious
handle or similar. And pump=no is a well with a bucket or similar.

2) How can mappers figure out the technology of the pump?
How are mappers expected to find out the pump technology mechanism?
Most pumps are located deep inside the well, or hidden in a service
building or structure next to the well. And why would this information
be worth mapping?

3) Key:actuator
The proposal mentions: actuator=windmill, actuator=watermill, and
actuator=beam_engine. What do these have to do with pumps?

The current use of the key actuator is quite rare, but the documented
values are: actuator=manual, actuator=electric_motor,
actuator=pneumatic_cylinder, actuator=hydraulic_cylinder - these don't
seem to have anything to do with windmills and watermills?

What about the exiting tags man_made=windpump, man_made=windmill,
man_made=watermill? Are you proposing to deprecate these common tags?

(also in the examples "actuator=manual" is mentioned, but it isn't in the list)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/19/20, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> François,
> Could you please simplify the "==Proposal==" section and make it 100%
> clear:
> 1) What new Keys and Tags (Key=Value) are being approved by the proposal
> 2) What old Keys and Tags are being deprecated
> 3) Move the Proposal section to the top, before Rationale, so people
> will be clear on what the proposal is going to do if it is approved.
> This is the current "==Proposal==" section. It's not clear what new
> tags are being proposed and what old tags are being deprecated.
> "It is proposed to complete OSM tagging for pumps used in any domain
> with the following tags :
> man_made=pump
> pump:output=*
> pump=* is currenlty established to state if a water well runs with a
> powered or manual pump (actually how the pump is driven if it exists).
> We also need a terminology to define the pump technology as many sorts
> exist in industry. It's then proposed to refurbish this tag with
> values related to pumps mechnanisms.
> Devices used to drive pumps (and get water in case of water wells)
> would be better described with existing actuator=* tag instead of
> pump. handle=* is also suitable for manual pumps or emergency usage
> with manual action when power isn't available.
> This option allows to avoid pump:type=* as well."
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> On 3/19/20, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Following several discussions last month, including this one:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051385.html
>> Here is a proposal regarding pumps, obvious devices we all more or less
>> know in industries or at home.
>> This knowledge is useful for water management, water accessibility,
>> industry moderation, emergency response...
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>> Classification is based upon Wikipedia community extensive work about 15
>> different pumping mechanisms. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure some
>> technologies are still missing in the proposal.
>> It's currently the most ambitious version, including pump=* conversion
>> for
>> machine mechanisms and moving driver description to existing actuator=*
>> Despite a consequent re-tagging effort (on water wells particularly),
>> here
>> are some pros arguments :
>> - Use more appropriate terminology and wider possibilities for drivers
>> with
>> actuator=*
>> - Avoid pump:type (:type doesn't bring any information)
>> - With 30k occurrences of pump=* and +100k for water wells, there is
>> still
>> more wells to qualify than already qualified with pump availability.
>> Examples are for now incomplete. It would be great to have at least one
>> use
>> case of each value. Feel free to contribute if you have appropriate
>> pictures.
>> Thank in advance for any comment, all the best
>> François

More information about the Tagging mailing list