[Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

European Water Project europeanwaterproject at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 13:36:12 UTC 2020

In France, almost all water fountains not supplied from the residential
water network  are marked as "non potable" -  indiscriminately of whether
or not the water is drinking quality.

No proper legislation exists which allows local authorities to
intermittently test fountain water quality and be protected in case of an
unlikely accident.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I also thought about case where
> water is commonly used as a drinking water
> (for example camp site in mountains),
> but there is no official testing or
> official permission or any official oversight.
> 7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od osm at westnordost.de:
> The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear
> why Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all,
> if there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no.
> Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:
>    - 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise
>    clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) ->
>    drinking_water=yes
>    - 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated
>    -> drinking_water=no
> But what about these?
>    - 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is
>    drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with
>    toxic substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine.
>    - 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is
>    clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right
>    now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled water.
> In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should
> be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he
> becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this
> case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with
> certainty record is that there is no official information about it
> whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water
> would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is
> drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve
> this, but there is also case 4.
> In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual
> situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations
> separately when necessary.
> Cheers
> Tobias
> On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,
> we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.
> Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water,
> drinking_water=yes)
> that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable
> sign"?
> drinking_water:signed=no ?
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200907/a6aee3d1/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list