Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[stevea]

Such "rules" would be somewhere in the realm of the "policy" of the merchant 
(or perhaps government agency).  I recall a guy in Los Angeles rather famously 
paying for a very overdue parking ticket of $180 with 18,000 pennies.  They 
tried to refuse him, they tried to close the "counter" where you do this, they 
tried to lock the building where his last option was to "go inside" to pay, and 
in the end, he simply "dumped" all the pennies onto the counter, making a 
perfectly crazy mess (which he videoed and published on YouTube, is where I 
think I saw this years ago) and he walked away.  He later found that the ticket 
was dismissed as "paid in full."

Some places DO either try to or actually do say "can't pay with coins here" or 
"a maximum amount accepted in coins is (some dollar amount)."  I've never seen 
these actually be strictly enforced, either by the merchant or something 
stronger, like the police, as "money is money" and while massive coins are 
certainly inconvenient, they are "money."

Just a few days ago, I was at my business bank (which provides all sorts of 
services to merchants and business owners, like both accepting rolls of coins 
for deposit, and providing rolls of coins) and there was a sign up saying "We 
may have to limit coins."  When I asked, I was told there is a (minor) coin 
shortage, at least at this bank branch.  Am I going to "call the police" on the 
bank because we have a dispute about coins (whether too few or too many)?  
Hardly.

While I don't mean to be rude to those I might do it to, I'd likely laugh in 
the face of somebody who told me they are not taking my coins in acceptance of 
a payment due.  And in the case of "refusing a 500€ bill / invoice with a 500€ 
note," well, that is so laughable I actually would walk out, invite them to 
call the police, and then laugh at them again when the police told them (maybe 
bullied them?!) into accepting the currency.  Sure, a merchant can "ask," but 
we have laws.  Maybe Oz does, too.  The link you provided DOES specify some 
limits, which we don't seem to have in the USA.

And BTW (though, I'm not an attorney), the way "the law" works here is:

• "the US Constitution" (#1),
• "law" (as in statutory law, including federal, state, county ordinance, city 
codes) as #2 and
• "policy" (a very, VERY weak #3).

For "policy," it really can only apply to the employees of those who "decree" 
it as "policy," not the general public (if you really push it, and this might 
mean taking it to court).

So, the next time somebody tells you "it's our policy," you can say "well, that 
doesn't trump the law" (and you might be able to add something like "nor my 
rights, as our constitution enumerates some of them").


> On Oct 9, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 10:12, stevea  wrote:
> Yes, I'm glad to hear this:  somebody refusing a 500€ bill / invoice with a 
> 500€ note would simply make me leave the note on the table (counter, hand of 
> the proprietor, if s/he let me...) and walk away, my obligation to remunerate 
> fully and legally completed.
> 
> The history of "money" is fascinating.  And it continues to unfold with 
> crypto, totally electronic payments, this seeming desire to eliminate cash 
> (by merchants and governments who don't seem to like the anonymity it can 
> provide...) and more.
> 
> > I heard it was forbidden in this case not to accept the 500 bill as it is 
> > legal tender 
> 
> Does anybody else have rules on the maximum amount that can be paid in coins?
> 
> https://banknotes.rba.gov.au/legal/legal-tender/
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] relevance of water taps as opposed to fountains

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I see the wiki yesterday has received some more question marks regarding 
distinction of water taps and drinking fountains, claiming that the drinking 
fountain tag has fewer usage as the water tap and “many fountains also qualify 
for the water tap tag”.

IMHO this is the result of loosing focus. Yes, many fountains have a water tap, 
many bubblers have a water tap, but this doesn’t mean it is the most sensible 
tag to represent the feature as a whole, nor is it a reason to dismiss the more 
pertinent tags with the argument that water tap has more usage.

We could say the same for toilets, they also regularly provide water taps.
We typically focus on the most significant aspect of a thing.

A water tap that isn’t part of a drinking fountain surely merits tagging, and 
as there may be no other established “main tag” in the case of non-potable 
water, it seems right there is a man_made tag for it. But if the tap is part of 
an amenity=toilets, it becomes much less significant and is usually only 
implied and not mapped explicitly at all.

Similarly the tap that is part of a drinking fountain cannot represent the 
whole fountain, hence it shouldn’t be in “competition” with the fountain tag, 
it could be added as a property like tap=* but adding it as man_made to the 
amenity (which is supposed to represent the whole feature) would just be a 
misrepresentation and misleading.

Cheers Martin 

sent from a phone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 10:12, stevea  wrote:

> Yes, I'm glad to hear this:  somebody refusing a 500€ bill / invoice with
> a 500€ note would simply make me leave the note on the table (counter, hand
> of the proprietor, if s/he let me...) and walk away, my obligation to
> remunerate fully and legally completed.
>
> The history of "money" is fascinating.  And it continues to unfold with
> crypto, totally electronic payments, this seeming desire to eliminate cash
> (by merchants and governments who don't seem to like the anonymity it can
> provide...) and more.
>
> > I heard it was forbidden in this case not to accept the 500 bill as it
> is legal tender
>

Does anybody else have rules on the maximum amount that can be paid in
coins?

https://banknotes.rba.gov.au/legal/legal-tender/

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 10:13, stevea  wrote:

>
> > replace man_made=water_tap with tap=yes and I subscribe. Also remove the
> redundant drinking_water=yes, it is implied by amenity=drinking_water
>
> This makes a lot of sense; +1.
>

Yep!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I started this thread to confirm/reject listing
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as
>> man_made=water_tap
>> fountain=bubbler
>> drinking_water=yes
>> amenity=drinking_water
> 
> replace man_made=water_tap with tap=yes and I subscribe. Also remove the 
> redundant drinking_water=yes, it is implied by amenity=drinking_water

This makes a lot of sense; +1.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[stevea]

Yes, I'm glad to hear this:  somebody refusing a 500€ bill / invoice with a 
500€ note would simply make me leave the note on the table (counter, hand of 
the proprietor, if s/he let me...) and walk away, my obligation to remunerate 
fully and legally completed.

At least in the USA, using currency (required to be accepted) isn't like barter 
(doesn't have to be accepted):  we even have a notation on each and every 
"Federal Reserve Note" (the debt instruments used in the USA as paper currency, 
often called "cash") which states:  "This note is legal tender, for all debts, 
public and private."  There are businesses which say, for example (to deter 
crime?) "No bills greater than $20 are accepted after dark" or what seem like 
similar, silly things (silly to me), but this remains questionable practice.  
It becomes a tussle between the right of the business owner to control how 
payments are accepted and the right of the consumer to pay using the "coin of 
the realm" (effectively, "currency").  But when 500€ is due and 500€ as a "cash 
note" is offered?  Yeah, I'd leave the note on the counter, and walk out, 
inviting them to call the police if they like (and if they do, wait for them 
and get it straightened out).  Any excuse by a business owner for not accepting 
a 500€ bill / note for 500€ has a screw loose (is a bit nuts, or at the very 
least, is acting quite unreasonably).

As I (on occasion, when traveling) have silver with me (one Troy ounce rounds, 
five ounce bars...) I might also offer 23 (and maybe 24, but not 25, as I'd be 
"losing value") ounces of silver to pay for this debt.  But with a business 
owner who doesn't even take "cash," them accepting silver seems even less 
likely (and silver is REAL money, paper currency, no, it is not).  BTW, because 
I'm a decent (and even savvy) "barter-er with silver" I get about 30% to 35% 
acceptance by merchants (supermarkets — though I usually have to talk to a 
manager, who pockets the silver and then puts his/her cash in the till to make 
the bookkeeping work, — gas stations, restaurants, shopkeepers, pet food 
stores...all have accepted my silver).

Speaking of "effectively," I like the fact that in Spanish, the word for "cash" 
(money as paper bills / notes) is "effectivo."  Well, "cash" is my 
back-translation to English, more precisely what my Spanish dictionary says is 
"money, that which composed of coins or bills" and is something like definition 
#4, while the #1 definition for this word is roughly "that which produces or 
results in the desired effect."

The history of "money" is fascinating.  And it continues to unfold with crypto, 
totally electronic payments, this seeming desire to eliminate cash (by 
merchants and governments who don't seem to like the anonymity it can 
provide...) and more.

> On Oct 9, 2022, at 4:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:26, Marc_marc  wrote:
>> 
>> but it's certainly not forbidden to pay for 500€ with a 500€ note,
>> even though some shops refuse to let you do so
> 
> 
> I heard it was forbidden in this case not to accept the 500 bill as it is 
> legal tender 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> I started this thread to confirm/reject listing
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as
> man_made=water_tap
> fountain=bubbler
> drinking_water=yes
> amenity=drinking_water


replace man_made=water_tap with tap=yes and I subscribe. Also remove the 
redundant drinking_water=yes, it is implied by amenity=drinking_water

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Which one?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
>  ?


yes, this one is not very clear, although the sticker they added makes it clear 
it is fine for drinking, apparently you have to bring a glass or bottle in 
order to drink without too much hazzle (you could drink there if it was without 
alternatives, for sure, but with alternatives you’d probably avoid it, because 
push buttons are generally uncomfortable and in this instance there is also too 
few distance to the support). The picture is not clear because we do not get to 
see the whole thing, just the tap



> Then I have not added in edit mentioned in this thread and I am still 
> confused about it
> and asked some question that I hope will clarify situation (I am confused how 
> it
> differs from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg -

the Bolsena one is clearly a drinking fountain made for people and animals, and 
is also styled like one so it can be identified from a distance (if you know 
local habits), the other one is not so clear but I wouldn’t complain if it was 
tagged as fountain=drinking

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10 Oct 2022, at 01:31, stevea  wrote:
> 
>  I suppose somebody figured "well, the drainage is good" (or even improved, 
> as here with a grate to a wastewater system, apparently)



yes, these are always connected via a grate with the sewers


> and "well, it doesn't make (hydrological) sense for us to 'plug' this with a 
> 'tap' (spigot, faucet, valve...), so we'll simply allow it to remain 
> free-flowing."  OK.


I’ve learnt initially at least some of them were required in some areas to have 
sufficient water in the sewers in all conditions, but most of them are probably 
just a small contribution to the amount of wasted water through old and leaking 
supply systems (I once read London was loosing a quarter of the fresh water 
through leakage, it’s a common phenomenon in many big cities)

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:26, Marc_marc  wrote:
> 
> but it's certainly not forbidden to pay for 500€ with a 500€ note,
> even though some shops refuse to let you do so


I heard it was forbidden in this case not to accept the 500 bill as it is legal 
tender 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 4:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2022, at 00:15, stevea  wrote:
>> 
>> If this water is potable, it's amenity=drinking_water. 
> 
> yes, it is potable, and if you look closely you’ll notice that the tube has 
> an upper hole, so when you tap the flow it will create a vertical spout in 
> the curve, so somehow it does have an upward flow.

That's clever, I haven't seen that; seems like it would work well.  I'll have 
to try it (plugging the downward flow, forcing upward flow, so that I can drink 
with my lips) next time I encounter one of these (or even this one).

> There is no tap, continuous flow, which is best from a hygienic and 
> temperature aspect but wasting some water of course.

Yes, some "fountains" (for drinking water) are like this.  I suppose somebody 
figured "well, the drainage is good" (or even improved, as here with a grate to 
a wastewater system, apparently) and "well, it doesn't make (hydrological) 
sense for us to 'plug' this with a 'tap' (spigot, faucet, valve...), so we'll 
simply allow it to remain free-flowing."  OK.

> I have looked at the drinking fountain article in en.wikipedia and from 14 
> examples, only 4 have an upward flow, so I would not expect this to be a 
> universal requirement, although I can imagine in some areas all drinking 
> fountains might work like this. In Rome they are very rare, have seen only 
> those in the sapienza university, while the hundreds of others in the city 
> almost always provide the hole so you can redirect the flow (but it is not 
> generally the case in other places nearby)

I am learning to be more flexible in "drinking fountains must have upward 
flow."  In my experience, what I call "drinking fountains" (what some call a 
"bubbler") DO have upward flow, either nearly always or always.  It seems this 
is because of a lack of cultural exposer to wider concepts of "fountain" around 
the world, so I'm happy to have my understanding of the word "fountain" be 
expanded to include this.  I am not so naïve as to think that because I haven't 
seen a wider definition of something that my narrow definition is correct; no.

>> Is it a fountain? Long sigh...I suppose so, but "fountain" wouldn't be the 
>> first word I think of for this.  I wouldn't call it a "drinking fountain," 
>> though (downward flow), though you can fill a water bottle and you could 
>> wash your hands.
> 
> I’ve mapped it with fountain=block, for me it is a modern fountain, with a 
> reference to the historic type (type of tube) but mimicking the normal stone 
> blocks around. By shape it is less fountain than the Bolsena example, and the 
> absence of a water tap doesn’t offer this kind of “side tracking”, so I 
> thought it could be interesting mentioning it.

That works for me.  And, it is interesting.  These entire threads are.  Thanks 
for the good (and sometimes tedious, but worth it) dialog.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10 Oct 2022, at 00:15, stevea  wrote:
> 
> If this water is potable, it's amenity=drinking_water. 


yes, it is potable, and if you look closely you’ll notice that the tube has an 
upper hole, so when you tap the flow it will create a vertical spout in the 
curve, so somehow it does have an upward flow.

There is no tap, continuous flow, which is best from a hygienic and temperature 
aspect but wasting some water of course.

I have looked at the drinking fountain article in en.wikipedia and from 14 
examples, only 4 have an upward flow, so I would not expect this to be a 
universal requirement, although I can imagine in some areas all drinking 
fountains might work like this. In Rome they are very rare, have seen only 
those in the sapienza university, while the hundreds of others in the city 
almost always provide the hole so you can redirect the flow (but it is not 
generally the case in other places nearby)


> Is it a fountain? Long sigh...I suppose so, but "fountain" wouldn't be the 
> first word I think of for this.  I wouldn't call it a "drinking fountain," 
> though (downward flow), though you can fill a water bottle and you could wash 
> your hands.


I’ve mapped it with fountain=block, for me it is a modern fountain, with a 
reference to the historic type (type of tube) but mimicking the normal stone 
blocks around. By shape it is less fountain than the Bolsena example, and the 
absence of a water tap doesn’t offer this kind of “side tracking”, so I thought 
it could be interesting mentioning it.

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 3:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> what about this?
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFountain_Largo_Samuele_Alatri,_Roma,_Italia_Sep_01,_2020_12-52-56_PM.jpeg

For this one, it doesn't even have a tap (apparently, water simply continuously 
flows), so I hesitate to use Joseph's excellent (US English-flavored?) "spigot" 
or "faucet."  Both of those words imply (to me) that there is a "tap," or a 
valve to control flow, and there doesn't appear to be one here.

If this water is potable, it's amenity=drinking_water.  Is it a fountain?  Long 
sigh...I suppose so, but "fountain" wouldn't be the first word I think of for 
this.  I wouldn't call it a "drinking fountain," though (downward flow), though 
you can fill a water bottle and you could wash your hands.  A more "generic" 
tag of amenity=drinking_water works very well here:  not adorned with "tap," 
not really anything besides "drinking water" in the most simple, unadorned way 
possible.  I've seen natural=spring water which is "rigged up" like this (with 
a simple downward pipe and continuous flow), but because I don't know what's 
under the ground making the water flow continuously like it does here, I 
wouldn't tag natural=spring here (though it may be true, and if somebody found 
out that's the source of the water, it would be a correct tag).

The "journey" continues!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:40, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> As an American, I would not consider "fontanella bolsena" 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg) to be a 
> drinking fountain, it appears to be a public drinking water "tap" (though in 
> American English we would usually call it a faucet or spigot).


what about this?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFountain_Largo_Samuele_Alatri,_Roma,_Italia_Sep_01,_2020_12-52-56_PM.jpeg___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> If yes - why 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
> would not be a water fountain?


looking again at this, it really is a poor construction and will not work well 
for either application, maybe ok to attach a hose, or to fill a glass, but the 
flow seems to strong and not uniform and it is too close to the cylinder to 
wash your hands or drink comfortably.

I agree, depending on the exact design of the cylinder (if it is designed as a 
public furniture or just a water tube) it could be a fountain or a water tap.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Or lets take
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg
> illustrating fountain=drinking and seemingly without upward flow:
> is it a drinking fountain?


IMHO yes, it is near a beach (of the lake) and its purpose is providing 
drinking water to visitors. I‘ll give you another example of a dedicated 
drinking fountain with downward flow:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADrinking_fountain_in_Firenze,_Italia_Aug_19,_2022_10-32-23_PM.jpeg

This is clearly a drinking fountain, everybody agrees?

equating “drinking fountain” with the vertical subtype would not catch the 
whole picture. 


btw., here’s what I would call a bottle refill (although I never tagged one nor 
have I proposed the value nor do I believe this is a fountain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APubliacqua_Piazza_della_Vittoria.jpg

node 7813712083 is a similar machine I have added as vending machine (because 
you pay the water, although it is quite cheap, like 0.05 eur and you bring your 
own bottle of course), with poor tagging (not distinguishable from machines 
selling water bottles).

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 2:38 PM, stevea  wrote:
> For Fontanella_Bolsena, I say exactly the same things:  could go either way.  
> If someone tagged this "drinking fountain," I might shake my head "no," 
> (downward flow), but I would be terribly upset, because it IS drinking WATER 
> and it is a tap.

Oops, I meant to type "I would NOT be terribly upset..."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[stevea]

On Oct 4, 2022, at 2:44 PM, Marc_marc  wrote:
> Le 04.10.22 à 14:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>> I would prefer even more using a different key for both: maybe
>> flow=gentle_upward_jet
>> flow=downward
>> would be better?
> 
> as a not-native, gentle_upward_jet is again a mix several  :
> gentle (qui est plutot un flow rate) et a flow direction.
> 
> flow=up/down or flow:dorection ?
> easy, similar to what we use for other keys (incline)

Marc_marc, when you get into flow=gentle_upward_jet flow=downward (these are 
such thoughtful tags they have a KINDNESS about them!) now you get into 
"whether I can fill a water bottle" with them, which adds yet another 
dimension.  I'm not saying these are bad or wrong tags (I like them), but 
pretty soon, now people might want fill_hydration_bottle=yes (or no), too.

>> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> See for example image shown at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking
> 
> this one is an exception, it’s inside a school (access=private)
> OK, lets assume that something with exactly this construction is 
> constructed in a public location.
> 
> Is it a drinking fountain?

Mateusz, I say "very good question" (as to whether this is a drinking 
fountain), because while it has that "push button tap," it is downward 
pointing, so "less for drinking by mouth and more for hand-washing or filling a 
water bottle."  Yet, you say it is at a private school, one might assume 
"smaller people" (children) and so it would be difficult for them to stand 
under the downward-flow to flow the water past their lips and take a drink.  
(No need to squat down low, contort one's body and awkwardly turn one's head 
upside down like in the "green cylinder" tap).  Although, in this case, a child 
would still need to turn their head up (or at least sideways) so the 
downward-flowing water would quench their thirst.  So, this one is a "wobbler," 
(for me), I'd say it could go either way as to whether it is a drinking 
fountain.  It is definitely amenity=drinking_water, and it is definitely a 
water_tap, though.  I wouldn't call it a "just plain" fountain, as it has a tap 
and it isn't decorative, it is for drinking.

For Fontanella_Bolsena, I say exactly the same things:  could go either way.  
If someone tagged this "drinking fountain," I might shake my head "no," 
(downward flow), but I would be terribly upset, because it IS drinking WATER 
and it is a tap.

For Key:fountain, I think we are doing well there specifying the various types. 
 The several edits you and Martin have added earlier this year continue to 
broaden this nicely.  For me (again, as an English speaker from the USA who 
doesn't often see the rich kinds of European fountains here — though I have 
traveled to Europe several times) the word "fountain" starts out as pretty 
generic (a device to flow water usually upward, sometimes downward and in a 
frequently decorative and sometimes useful way), and then explodes into 
"drinking," and "decorative" and "useful" (like in a fountain=mister at an 
outdoor café on a hot day to cool off patrons) and even more kinds of 
fountains.  I didn't realize it was this complex, but as I am shown that it is, 
I nod my head and must agree that all of these other flavors of fountain really 
are "fountains."

> If yes - why 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
> would not be a water fountain?

SOME people might call this a "water fountain" and I wouldn't completely 
disagree (you can fill a water bottle, for example).  But I wouldn't call this 
a "drinking fountain" as the downward flow and the necessity of an adult 
needing to squat-and-contort doesn't fit my usual understanding of what a 
"drinking fountain" is.  (I repeat myself with this, but that's OK).

I sincerely hope all of this helps!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

As an American, I would not consider "fontanella bolsena" (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg) to be a
drinking fountain, it appears to be a public drinking water "tap" (though
in American English we would usually call it a faucet or spigot).

On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 2:14 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Oct 4, 2022, 15:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Also, ones in Rome that I have seen mostly had downward flow.
>
>
>
> the typical, mostly deployed types in Rome (nasone and roman_wolf) are
> both providing a method to change to upward flow (there’s a hole on top of
> the tube and when you tap the outlet the water jets out there)
>
> Oh, I was unaware of this. That would make my life easier during my visit
> there.
>
> So nasone/roman_wolf style water provider with downward flow only - would
> it
> be a drinking fountain?
>
> Or lets take
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg
> illustrating fountain=drinking and seemingly without upward flow:
> is it a drinking fountain?
>
> If no - should we rename fountain=drinking? Or remove it as an example
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain ?
>
> If yes - why
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
> would not be a water fountain?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 09.10.22 à 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes?


I seem to have heard that some people wanted to ban it when
the amount is less than half the ticket, also with coin in a bus.

but it's certainly not forbidden to pay for 500€ with a 500€ note,
even though some shops refuse to let you do so

Regards,
Marc


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
> As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples
> (bottom example) that bubblers are mostly water taps, despite that
> it may be highly confusing for some people which are not native
> speakers. 
> 
> Like me.
> 
> Let me know if this edit was right or wrong (I am quite confused here,
> and this is why I want to document this to make situation less confusing).

"Drinking water linguistic journey" is both accurate and nearly hilarious 
(well, mirthful to me, at least)!

I think your edit is accurate, Mateusz, especially as you clarify a water tap 
has the feature that it is "activated by its user."

Martin, "tap=yes" is sort of mathematically (boolean-ly?) unambiguous and I'm 
glad OSM as a database can strip it down like this.  Whether the correct verb 
for this noun is "is" or "has" might be confusing for the former (but not the 
latter), but both verbs work just fine for me (a native English speaker).  When 
one says "is" (a water tap) one means "the entire fixture acts as one" and when 
one says "has" one means "the spigot feature (smaller than the entirety of the 
whole device) is the thing the device has that acts as a water tap."

Whew, English!  Journeys through it.  I hope that this (what a long, strange 
trip it's been...) can add some clarity to however we finally document the 
various flavors of tap, drinking water, et cetera.  It's work, but it's worth 
it, as there MUST be a finish line in our future!

I continue to call "bubblers" (although I personally call them "drinking 
fountains") emitting a jot of water on button press "water taps," as it is that 
button press that makes them a "tap."  Yes, they are both drinking fountains / 
bubblers, too, as well as amenity=drinking_water, I hope it is all clear (how I 
see things).  And, I continue to listen, this is sort of fascinating, in an 
"oh, my gosh, look how we have had to drag this out" kind of way.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 9, 2022, 23:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples
>> (bottom example) that bubblers are mostly water taps, despite that
>> it may be highly confusing for some people which are not native
>> speakers.
>>
>
>
> the cylinder shaped drinking water fountain/water tap you set as example for 
> water tap, if I counted right, was seen by 2 people as not a drinking 
> fountain (Warin and stevea), while I said it was one or could be seen as one 
> and you and marcmarc haven‘t been explicit. Maybe I missed someone in the 
> count? I wouldn’t use such “survey results” to back anything in the wiki, and 
> would not make suggestions in the wiki for the tagging of such edge cases.
>
Which one?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
 ?
Then I have not added in edit mentioned in this thread and I am still confused 
about it
and asked some question that I hope will clarify situation (I am confused how it
differs from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg - 
or
is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain also requiring changes or 
maybe
entire fountain=drinking value is also broken).
I started this thread to confirm/reject listing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as
man_made=water_tap
fountain=bubbler
drinking_water=yes
amenity=drinking_water
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 9, 2022, 23:08 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Let me know if this edit was right or wrong (I am quite confused here,
>> and this is why I want to document this to make situation less confusing).
>>
>
>
> IMHO saying it _is_ a water tap is confusing, I’d say it _has_ a water tap, 
> i.e. tap=yes
>
wait.

So "water tap" is referring only to control mechanism that enables user to 
start water flow?
(and sometimes also stop water flow)

Not to entire water delivery apparatus?

(BTW, I want to document existing tagging here and tap=yes has 347 uses while
man_made=water_tap 23 711 uses - though if someone wants to make proposal
they are welcome, tagging scheme is quite rotten here)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 4, 2022, 15:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Also, ones in Rome that I have seen mostly had downward flow.
>>
>
>
> the typical, mostly deployed types in Rome (nasone and roman_wolf) are both 
> providing a method to change to upward flow (there’s a hole on top of the 
> tube and when you tap the outlet the water jets out there)
>
Oh, I was unaware of this. That would make my life easier during my visit there.

So nasone/roman_wolf style water provider with downward flow only - would it
be a drinking fountain?

Or lets take
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg
illustrating fountain=drinking and seemingly without upward flow:
is it a drinking fountain?

If no - should we rename fountain=drinking? Or remove it as an example
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain ?

If yes - why 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg
would not be a water fountain?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 4, 2022, 15:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> See for example image shown at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking
>>
>
>
> this one is an exception, it’s inside a school (access=private)
>
OK, lets assume that something with exactly this construction is 
constructed in a public location.

Is it a drinking fountain?

(why location would matter? Is it because children are smaller?)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Let me know if this edit was right or wrong (I am quite confused here,
> and this is why I want to document this to make situation less confusing).


IMHO saying it _is_ a water tap is confusing, I’d say it _has_ a water tap, 
i.e. tap=yes

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples
> (bottom example) that bubblers are mostly water taps, despite that
> it may be highly confusing for some people which are not native
> speakers.


the cylinder shaped drinking water fountain/water tap you set as example for 
water tap, if I counted right, was seen by 2 people as not a drinking fountain 
(Warin and stevea), while I said it was one or could be seen as one and you and 
marcmarc haven‘t been explicit. Maybe I missed someone in the count? I wouldn’t 
use such “survey results” to back anything in the wiki, and would not make 
suggestions in the wiki for the tagging of such edge cases.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 9, 2022, 22:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:01, m.brandt...@posteo.de wrote:
>>
>> voting has started for the proposal Payment denominations.
>>
>
>
> question: is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes? 
>
no idea, but many vending machines will refuse to accept large denominations

and many shops will de facto refuse, especially with tiny purchases

(not entirely sure which kind of filtering of potential clients is legal and 
when
shop may refuse to sell things to you)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:01, m.brandt...@posteo.de wrote:
> 
> voting has started for the proposal Payment denominations.


question: is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes? 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

For now I

1) notified people who used added this tag more than once 
(currently mapped man_made=drinking_fountain are counted)

See notification list at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Deprecation

2) added section "Problems" at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Problems

If noone will protest I will also mark it as deprecated and add request to
consider using other less problematic tags.

If someone will protest I will likely make a deprecation proposal
(or leave it in limbo state if I will have no time for that).


Oct 4, 2022, 14:48 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> I am not entirely how to solve various issues surrounding drinking water 
> terminology
> (help highly welcomed!) but it is now really clear to me that
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain
> is not helpful at all and it should be marked as deprecated
>
> - many drinking fountains are eligible for man_made=water_tap
> - it duplicates > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Dbubbler
> - as stated this tag is equivalent to 
>   > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Dbubbler
>   but there are also water fountain which are not emitting
>   upward jet of water in the air
>
> So we have tag which for many (all?) features collides with better
> established tag AND it is duplicated AND it is poorly named AND it is rarely 
> used
> AND it introduces confusion.
>
> Can we mark it as deprecated and recommend not using it?
> With replacement of man_made=water_tap where applicable - which is 
> likely for all cases or almost all cases.
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples
(bottom example) that bubblers are mostly water taps, despite that
it may be highly confusing for some people which are not native
speakers. 

Like me.

Let me know if this edit was right or wrong (I am quite confused here,
and this is why I want to document this to make situation less confusing).

Edit was done in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap=2417001=2416998
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[m.brandtner]

Hello,

voting has started for the proposal Payment denominations. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Payment_denominations

Have a nice week!

Kind regards,
Michael (Discostu36)

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I'll be voting no. 

Me too, I feel there are way too many changes.

I'd rather better define the values of fountain=*.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 2:10 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
> Oct 9, 2022, 10:53 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> There is also the more “rogue” (not well-sanctioned, rather “under the 
> radar,” maybe looked at by some or many as “disapproved” or “questionable…”) 
> method of simply “any tag you like, and using it in the wild” (without the 
> whole Proposal process).

> Using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like to produce new 
> tags
> is well sanctioned and normal and how we got most of our tags.

OK, you say my choice of “not well-sanctioned” is erroneous; I appreciate your 
feedback.

> Using at least part of proposal process (RFC) may help but it does not make 
> other tags
> or tagging schemes invalid.

Yet, I can’t help but notice there is a distinct trend towards many proposals 
being offered.  The great majority of these present as thoughtful and 
well-developed, resulting in (wiki) documentation ready-made and 
richly-detailed, as well as at least a kernel of community familiar with its 
details.  With a “coined” tag, I won’t make the mistake of saying these aren’t 
true, but it is true that they are less well-developed (and maybe don’t need to 
be), are often less well-documented and may not have the wider community 
familiarity and acceptance of a tag which became Approved through the proposal 
process.

Again, thank you for pointing out that both are perfectly valid.  However, 
while they both might have the same “validity,” I (for one, and I believe many 
in OSM) feel the many differences between these two “origin stories” of newer 
tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[stevea]

Minh, thank you for your always-excellent research.  With this recent law 
(2017) about purple pipes in California and the 2015 Uniform Codes (Plumbing, 
Mechanical), I stand corrected as to my “there is no color-coding” (on pipes 
for reclaimed water in California).



On Oct 9, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Minh Nguyen  wrote:
> Vào lúc 23:50 2022-10-08, stevea đã viết:
>> On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:
>>> 
 Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. 
 or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more 
 CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this 
 stuff, just look and smell it!)
>>> 
>>> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.
>>> 
>>> Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
>>> some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are 
>>> connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be 
>>> drunk.
>>> 
>>> https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg
>> Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf 
>> course example).  While there is no "purple means don't drink" color-coding 
>> here, there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a 
>> publicly-accessible "water tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink 
>> (and again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
>> "non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the 
>> "international red circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human 
>> drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.
> 
> In California, any pipe or tap carrying recycled water is legally required to 
> be colored purple. [1] For water from other sources, "Do Not Drink", "No 
> Beber", or sign PS-013 [2] would be posted. Indoors, the Uniform Plumbing 
> Code, a national standard, specifies a particular shade of purple paint for 
> non-potable water pipes when the building also has potable water pipes. [3]
> 
> drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there are 
> non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split hairs. 
> I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking fountains would 
> both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by default, but the default 
> should be overridden when more is known about the water source.
> 
> With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data 
> consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is 
> potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New Orleans 
> that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once considered that 
> they might be hooked up to the municipal water system and maintained to the 
> standard of a public drinking fountain.
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
> [3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[ael via Tagging]

On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 03:01:57PM -0700, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > But I was just trying to feed in that calling these things fountains is
> > not natural in everyday British English. Feel free to ignore.
> > The one term which is natural, drinking_fountain, I gather at least
> > one person wants to deprecate.
> 
> Interesting, I wonder if British English might sometimes use the term
> "fountain" more loosely, even if it has a stricter formal meaning. Here in
> the U.S., upward motion is certainly characteristic of fountains, but
> artists have a tendency to bend the rules. My favorites are the ones that
> look like waterfalls:

I am sure that there are examples. And I would not find it odd to call
some of those posted as fountains in that there is some upward motion,
and in at least one case an upward jet. 


But that was only my off-the-cuff definition in trying to isolate the
main aspect of what I perceive to be common usage. I keep saying that
I am not an expert.


ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 9. Okt. 2022 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen <
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:

> drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there
> are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split
> hairs.



+1



> I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking
> fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by
> default, but the default should be overridden when more is known about
> the water source.
>


a tag for drinking fountains should definitely imply drinking_water=yes,
but amenity=fountain should not imply any default value for
"drinking_water", it should be checked and tagged explicitly. Expectations
change around the globe and while it could be approached with national or
regional defaults, I think it is better to be explicit (because a missing
value is not clear, can be default or unknown, and potability of water is
super important in this context).




>
> With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data
> consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is
> potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New
> Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once
> considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system
> and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.
>


yes, water taps on cemeteries, as far as I recall, have been the initial
reason for introducing man_made=water_tap (some people had started mapping
amenity=drinking_water drinking_water=no ;-) )

Cheers,
Martin




>
> [1]
>
> https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
> [3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18

00145 Roma

|I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I|

Italia
N41.851, E12.4824
8FHJVF5W+W5

tel1: +39 06.916508070
tel2: +49 30 868708638
mobil: +39 392 3114712
m...@koppenhoefer.com
http://www.koppenhoefer.com


Hinweis:
Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der
manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die
übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu
entschuldigen.

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmas...@koppenhoefer.com

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from
our systems.

Thank You.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 23:50 2022-10-08, stevea đã viết:

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:


Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), and 
'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, just look 
and smell it!)


Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.

Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are connected 
to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be drunk.

https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg


Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf course example).  While there is no "purple means don't 
drink" color-coding here, there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a publicly-accessible "water 
tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink (and again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
"non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the "international red 
circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.


In California, any pipe or tap carrying recycled water is legally 
required to be colored purple. [1] For water from other sources, "Do Not 
Drink", "No Beber", or sign PS-013 [2] would be posted. Indoors, the 
Uniform Plumbing Code, a national standard, specifies a particular shade 
of purple paint for non-potable water pipes when the building also has 
potable water pipes. [3]


drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there 
are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split 
hairs. I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking 
fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by 
default, but the default should be overridden when more is known about 
the water source.


With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data 
consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is 
potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New 
Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once 
considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system 
and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.


[1] 
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
[3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

No, it would not "turn them into taps", but it WOULD mean that a tap is present 
as part of the structure of the device.  "amenity=drinking_water; tap=yes".  
The water is potable and you have to operate a tap to make it flow (so you may 
be OK to get a drink, but your dog might struggle and need assistance)  
A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I suppose) is 
coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; petrol (gasoline), 
Oxygen, whatever...

Regards,Peter(PeterPan99)
On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 18:43:39 BST, Peter Elderson 
 wrote:  
 
 I have the impression that slow running water points in Europe rapidly are 
fitted with a push button fot a limited amount of water or a limited tap time. 
Would that turn them into water taps? 

Peter Elderson


  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list

[Cartographer10 via Tagging]

Hello everybody,

Voting has started for "Require proposal announcements to be made on the new 
forum instead of the mailing list."

Please, read the proposal carefully, since the first announcement, things have 
changed.
 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Require_proposal_announcements_to_be_made_on_the_new_forum_instead_of_the_mailing_list
Kind regards,

Vincent
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 9, 2022, 10:53 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> There is also the more “rogue” (not well-sanctioned, rather “under the 
> radar,” maybe looked at by some or many as “disapproved” or “questionable…”) 
> method of simply “any tag you like, and using it in the wild” (without the 
> whole Proposal process).
>
Using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like to produce new tags
is well sanctioned and normal and how we got most of our tags.

Using at least part of proposal process (RFC) may help but it does not make 
other tags
or tagging schemes invalid.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[stevea]

My sincere apologies for any double-post you might have received from me just 
now.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Illia Marchenko]

I withdrew this proposal. Thanks for your feedback!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[stevea]

Creating a new tag for an as-yet-unmapped feature (key) with variants 
(differing values):  no harder than making a formal Proposal (some effort, not 
terribly difficult) and getting a super-majority to Approve.  Do-able, “some 
effort,” not trivial, but not impossible, either.  I’ll say “about right.”  
Because that’s what “we, as OSM” already say.

There is also the more “rogue” (not well-sanctioned, rather “under the radar,” 
maybe looked at by some or many as “disapproved” or “questionable…”) method of 
simply “any tag you like, and using it in the wild” (without the whole Proposal 
process).  That has its problems, like lots of potential and actual 
misunderstanding (for lack of documentation), as well as frowns from a wider 
community (for lack of achieving consensus).  You can do this, but it is rather 
unorthodox.  Sometimes (perhaps even rarely) what ends up emerging from this 
are good features that “come in through a back door,” but not very often.  OSM 
is a community built by consensus, not autocratically by a single clever person 
(or small groups of them).  Maybe, to get certain things “rolling along” in 
OSM’ earlier days, this did happen more often than now, but we are a mature, 
worldwide project now.  We listen to ourselves and have good process.

Creating a new tag TO REPLACE an existing tag, where you end up (or attempt to) 
deprecating EXISTING tagging should indeed be a rather high bar of difficulty:  
we do not want "wholesale replacement” of existing tagging (to be easy).  It is 
possible to replace existing tagging, but it is intentionally difficult to do 
this, especially without wide community approval as to why, how the new is 
better than the old, and how much pain (of eliminating an existing feature of 
OSM) this will cause, and that it is worth it to suffer this pain.

If you think about it, and especially if you have “grown up with OSM as IT has 
grown up,” you see the merits in this.  If not, it might seem odd, or 
nonsensical.  Please understand that these are organic, evolving processes, and 
they “grow up,” too.  We don’t want them to get brittle in their old age, we 
want them to be flexible enough to accommodate a real world that evolves in a 
database that must achieve SOME consistency.  We want to “bend without 
breaking.”  But we can also bend so much we snap and break, too.  Once again 
(in this phase of Libra), I remind us that “balances can be struck,” and they 
should be.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[stevea]

Creating a new tag for an as-yet-unmapped feature (key) with variants 
(differing values):  no harder than making a formal Proposal (some effort, not 
terribly difficult) and getting a super-majority to Approve.  Do-able, “some 
effort,” not trivial, but not impossible, either.  I’ll say “about right.”  
Because that’s what “we, as OSM” already say.

There is also the more “rogue” (not well-sanctioned, rather “under the radar,” 
maybe looked at by some or many as “disapproved” or “questionable…”) method of 
simply “any tag you like, and using it in the wild” (without the whole Proposal 
process).  That has its problems, like lots of potential and actual 
misunderstanding (for lack of documentation), as well as frowns from a wider 
community (for lack of achieving consensus).  You can do this, but it is rather 
unorthodox.  Sometimes (perhaps even rarely) what ends up emerging from this 
are good features that “come in through a back door,” but not very often.  OSM 
is a community built by consensus, not autocratically by a single clever person 
(or small groups of them).  Maybe, to get certain things “rolling along” in 
OSM’ earlier days, this did happen more often than now, but we are a mature, 
worldwide project now.  We listen to ourselves and have good process.

Creating a new tag TO REPLACE an existing tag, where you end up (or attempt to) 
deprecating EXISTING tagging should indeed be a rather high bar of difficulty:  
we do not want "wholesale replacement” of existing tagging (to be easy).  It is 
possible to replace existing tagging, but it is intentionally difficult to do 
this, especially without wide community approval as to why, how the new is 
better than the old, and how much pain (of eliminating an existing feature of 
OSM) this will cause, and that it is worth it to suffer this pain.

If you think about it, and especially if you have “grown up with OSM as IT has 
grown up,” you see the merits in this.  If not, it might seem odd, or 
nonsensical.  Please understand that these are organic, evolving processes, and 
they “grow up,” too.  We don’t want them to get brittle in their old age, we 
want them to be flexible enough to accommodate a real world that evolves in a 
database that must achieve SOME consistency.  We want to “bend without 
breaking.”  But we can also bend so much we snap and break, too.  Once again 
(in this phase of Libra), I remind us that “balances can be struck,” and they 
should be.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 12:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> sent from a phone
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:43, stevea  wrote:
>> Tags must capture these differences, and more.
> 
> and ideally they should do it in a way to reduce confusion

Yes, thank you; +1.  (I forgot to add “to reduce confusion,” you are quite 
right).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Warin]

On 9/10/22 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


I'll be voting no.



me too, it is trying to deprecate a handful of tags I am using for 
fountain classification. Why do people have to “deprecate” other 
people’s tags when they introduce new ones with different semantics?


How can a “water outlet” tag replace a tag that represents the whole 
fountain?


I also don’t like unnecessarily convoluted tags of this kind:

  * water_supply:for

=bottles




and usually a water outlet is not “for bottles” but compatible with 
filling bottles.



Some water outlets are designed for filling water bottles, just as some 
are designed for drinking from, showering...


I wonder why showers are not yet a fountain= thing.. someone has not 
thought of it yet?


Other possible fountain values? trough? If it has water .. must be a 
fountain looks to be the mantra.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:43, stevea  wrote:
> 
> Tags must capture these differences, and more.


and ideally they should do it in a way to reduce confusion


Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll be voting no.


me too, it is trying to deprecate a handful of tags I am using for fountain 
classification. Why do people have to “deprecate” other people’s tags when they 
introduce new ones with different semantics?

How can a “water outlet” tag replace a tag that represents the whole fountain?

I also don’t like unnecessarily convoluted tags of this kind:
water_supply:for=bottles

and usually a water outlet is not “for bottles” but compatible with filling 
bottles.

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Warin]

On 9/10/22 17:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:


> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking
water .. or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend
you boil' (more CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really
would not drink this stuff, just look and smell it!)

Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. 



Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in 
parks & some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that 
they are connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water 
should NOT be drunk.\



My local council is putting in storm water tanks for use as irrigation..

I think that tap was purple. The tap 'handle' was a 'secure fitting' .. 
you can buy the 'secure handle' at the local hardware store 
(bunnings)... a 4 way device to cope with 4 different 'secure fittings'.




https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg



I'll take a photo next time I'm out that way of the secure fitting and 
probably faded purple colouring.




Thanks

Graeme

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[stevea]

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:
> 
> > Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
> > 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), 
> > and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, 
> > just look and smell it!)
> 
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. 
> 
> Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
> some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are 
> connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be drunk.
> 
> https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg

Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf course 
example).  While there is no "purple means don't drink" color-coding here, 
there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a 
publicly-accessible "water tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink (and 
again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
"non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the 
"international red circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human 
drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.

We do seem to be getting closer to harmony here, but there are still a few 
sharps and flats among the notes we're all humming.  Good.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Warin]

The symbol is of a tap, not applicable to a 'drinking fountain'.

A suitable symbol could be a simple drop of water as that does not 
signify the physical feature?



The tag does not distinguish between taps, drinking fountains, a 
continuous flow from a pipe, a river, a pool, a gutter or a spoon drain. 
It would apply to all water sources.


On 8/10/22 20:49, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Water outlets for public or customer use (generic tagging).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Water_outlet
Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.



Discussions can take place here, part of the tagging list.


I'll be voting no.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

What do they say about great minds, Steve? :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:43, stevea  wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:31 PM, stevea  wrote:
> > Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example,
> a hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a
> hose and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a
> tap can also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source
> as drinking water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to
> make it drinkable — sources).
>
> I forgot to add to this:  On the other hand, a "tap" which looks exactly
> the same (identical turn-knob to control flow from "off" to "some" to
> "full") might NOT be "drinking water," because it is located at the local
> golf course, and has a sign next to it saying "Non-potable; using reclaimed
> water:  only for irrigation.  Not safe to drink."
>
> Tags must capture these differences, and more.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:

>
> > Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water ..
> or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more
> CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this
> stuff, just look and smell it!)
>
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.


Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks &
some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are
connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be
drunk.

https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 at 16:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As for the pipe ... does it have a tap, or does it flow constantly? Bore
> water? Spring water?
>

Sorry, forgot about this one.

One camping ground that I'm thinking of, that we visit frequently, water is
pumped from the creek to a big water tank, where it is triple-filtered.
It's then pumped down to a smaller tank, which is also topped up by
filtered rainwater. You then use a normal turn handle tap to fill water
jerries etc (The tap is only ~300mm from the ground so it would be very
difficult to physically drink from it!) Signs on the tank, & the parks info
brochures / website, all say "We recommend you boil this water before
drinking", but as you say, probably just a CYA exercise?

I've seen similar signs on taps in public parks, once again, probably
Council CYA.

Thanks

Graeme

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[stevea]

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:31 PM, stevea  wrote:
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example, a 
> hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a hose 
> and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a tap can 
> also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source as 
> drinking water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to make 
> it drinkable — sources).

I forgot to add to this:  On the other hand, a "tap" which looks exactly the 
same (identical turn-knob to control flow from "off" to "some" to "full") might 
NOT be "drinking water," because it is located at the local golf course, and 
has a sign next to it saying "Non-potable; using reclaimed water:  only for 
irrigation.  Not safe to drink."

Tags must capture these differences, and more.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[stevea]

I love reading about all the German flavors here — and I'm not a bit surprised 
(as the German language loves to do this, and I love German for this!)

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:20 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
>>> feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate 
>>> subtags.
>> 
>> it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
>> isn’t in the other.
> 
> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
> 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), 
> and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, just 
> look and smell it!)

Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example, a 
hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a hose 
and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a tap can 
also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source as drinking 
water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to make it drinkable 
— sources).

>> I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could be justified if we 
>> did
> 
> We don't use different main tags for roads that are private.. If it is the 
> same feature but has different properties secondary tags have been used.

Yeah, there seems to me (as I consider German, Italian, English, Polish, 
others...) many of the perspectives from the worldwide envelope we want to use 
to enclose this tagging, there will be a small number of primary / main tags 
(one or two, maybe three at most) and a whole host of secondary tags.  That's 
the tough part, selecting which are which, but I don't think we want a gigantic 
proliferation of primary / main tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:

It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate subtags.


it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
isn’t in the other.


Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. 
or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more 
CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this 
stuff, just look and smell it!)



I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could be justified if we did



We don't use different main tags for roads that are private.. If it is 
the same feature but has different properties secondary tags have been 
used.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging