Hi Phil, This is part of the dataset that we used. I am highlighting that the significant tag of the dataset is *amenity = water_point. H*owever, for completeness, attributes including the *name of the water point* are essential You may be able to see that white your skill through the overpass query you have shared.
Does that make sense? Stellamaris On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 9:37 PM Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stellamaris, > > > > Have a look at existing water points and you can see the combination of > tags that can/could be used. You will also see how some of the points have > names and some don’t. Be aware that some existing records may also no > longer be ‘best practice’ (ie source on each object rather than on the > changeset). > > > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1nt0 > > > > HOT Uganda may also be able to offer advice from their past experience > > > > https://www.hotosm.org/where-we-work/uganda/ > > > > Cheers - Phil > > > > *From:* Stellamaris Nakacwa <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, 7 November 2022 1:15 PM > *To:* Mike Thompson <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Phil Wyatt <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Imports] UPLOADING U-WIMP project data to osm > > > > So, how do we label the results of our results that gave us the > significance of this tag sequence? > > > > I am really curious and I would love to know how best we can work around > it. > > > > Thank you! > > Stellamaris > > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 8:36 PM Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 6:19 PM Stellamaris Nakacwa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Phil, > > > > We were able to make a thorough assessment of the key/value pair of all > water tags, based on granularity, compliance, consistency and completeness > (temporal and spatial coverage) and what is written in my osm wiki is the > most significant outcome of the assessment. --a snippet is attached too. > Also, I personally believe that uploading data to osm (esp. for LIC) > should not just be for the sake of uploads but to make real data > contributions that those governing institutions and interested parties can > rely on to make desired planning progress. In verbatim, I believe that all > infrastructure is man-made. That is why for springs, we only mapped ones > that have been well-built and cared for. > > Regardless if a spring is tagged natural=spring, the name=* tag is only > for the name of the feature, not for descriptive information. Also, the > name tag is not a way to cause the renderer to create a desired label that > would otherwise not appear, that is tagging for the renderer. > > > > However, regarding springs, in my opinion, springs are inherently > natural. If there is human made infrastructure associated with the spring, > separate tags should be found for that infrastructure, or perhaps it should > be mapped separately. Take the example of a lake where humans have > extensively modified the shoreline, we still tag the lake as natural=water. > > > > Mike > > > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
