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

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 21:51:17 UTC 2020


Hi Joseph and thank you for such a quick and complete comment session

That 7 points allowed to change the proposal a bit and include
man_made=windmill, watermill instead of actuator.
Answers are available in Talk :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
I hope lacks of clarity are now fixed.
In case an answers solve a problem, don't hesitate to use {{Resolved|
comment    }} template to close it.

Again, anyone would be welcome to propose situations involving pumps to
complete example sections.

All the best

François

Le jeu. 19 mars 2020 à 03:27, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> 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
> supported.
>
> 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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200319/e7c89e62/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list