Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with clean up. I appreciate all the discussion and help from your side (it was my first proposal, so I didn't know exactly how it should be carried out). I think you should take the negative feedback to heart, regardless of the vote outcome. You're messing with existing successful tagging efforts, making it harder for those who came before you, and effectively asking others to clean up after you. * The exactly how to do it is to address the issues and start over.* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Having said this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that people who currently actively oppose the proposal have not participated in a 4-month discussion, where most of the current concerns were raised and analysed. Your job as a proposer is not just to stuff something on the wiki and hope nobody notices... you need to *FIND* the community around the tags you are proposing. You did not do this. I happened to find you AND comment in a timely manner, so your statement above is not correct. The goal is not to 'analyze and ignore' but rather to reach 'consensus'. You are laser focused on mapping a specific feature, but missing the bigger picture. http://wetap.org/ is an example organization you should have been able to identify and contact. That's based on OSM data, and you are pulling the rug out from under them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: 7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution than amenity=drinking_water: 7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated amenity, and still be very useful: e.g. a public toilet in a well-developed country can provide access to drinking water, but it's not an amenity=drinking_water, it is amenity=toilet. Marking one thing with two amenity nodes is possible but (1) it's a workaround rather than a nice solution; (2) I think many people, especially tourists from less developed countries, may not even understand such tagging and will be looking for a dedicated amenity. A key problem with your proposal is divergent tagging with no migration plan. - Double amenity was *not* in common use prior to your proposal: amenity=toilets;drinking_water Instead the tagging has been: amenity=toilets drinking_water=no Similarly for shops: amenity=shop toilets=yes toilets:wheelchair=yes toilets:disposal=flush Or other places: tourism=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=yes At the first level of tagging these can be seen as attributes of the amenity, much like opening hours, website, etc.. If detailed tagging is done (e.g. individual camp pads), then the individual water taps can be mapped at that time. Until then the existing tagging works just fine. For backcountry camp sites tagging water is critical. The first question after where is it, is will there be water, followed by is that water potable. Bottom line: please listen to other mappers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On 2015-01-17 at 01:03:05 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: 1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at least for a while. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at least for a while. Yes, I have and do it regularly. Also the all mail folder, since some emails get there without appearing in the inbox. Also just searched for the messages. All in vain :( ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with clean up. Sorry but you could extend the period of feedbacks. 7 of the 11 positive votes came before the 13th january when I posted my comments about the possible issues (and the discussion forwarded here which probably drew more attention to more people). After this date the trend was much more balanced. You say you are aware of the clash with amenity=drinking_water but you don't explain how you will avoid this in your cleanup. You also agree that we need a rework but your proposal is just increasing the difficulties than solving them in the future. Now, for a water tap in the public space, it will be tagged with amenity=drinking_water. And for the same water tap inside or near a cemetery, it will be tagged with man_made=water_tap. How can we explain that to newcomers ? why amenity in one case and man_made on the other ? what is implied about potability ? etc Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
So what is the solution ? amenity=non_drinking_water ? It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging scheme for water sources. regards m. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with clean up. Sorry but you could extend the period of feedbacks. 7 of the 11 positive votes came before the 13th january when I posted my comments about the possible issues (and the discussion forwarded here which probably drew more attention to more people). After this date the trend was much more balanced. You say you are aware of the clash with amenity=drinking_water but you don't explain how you will avoid this in your cleanup. You also agree that we need a rework but your proposal is just increasing the difficulties than solving them in the future. Now, for a water tap in the public space, it will be tagged with amenity=drinking_water. And for the same water tap inside or near a cemetery, it will be tagged with man_made=water_tap. How can we explain that to newcomers ? why amenity in one case and man_made on the other ? what is implied about potability ? etc Pieren ___ 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 - Water tap
I don't get how amenity=drinking_water is a problem. It is just a tag with a wider meaning. man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes is a special type of amenity=drinking_water, as is natural=spring+drinking_water=yes or some other combination. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
As for newcomers, I think editors like iD should hide the intricacies of the tagging system anyway. If you click drinking water it puts amenity=drinking_water. But then it offers you all types of drinking water, like a tap, a spring, bottled water in a vending machine, a hose, a well and if you choose a tap it puts man_made=water_tap + drinking_water=yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: amenity=non_drinking_water ? Or amenity=non_drinkable_water + a subtag describing the object It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging scheme for water sources. I never said that. Although very hard, it is not impossible to deprecate a tag in OSM. We just need real good arguments for it. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help. @Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water It feels like a good start and compromise. Either can be associated with a more physical feature that represents an outlet of a water network. A few tagging examples... any point with drinking water: amenity=drinking_water + [opt] man_made=* a well: man_made=water_well + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water a tap: man_made=water_tap + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water a water point: man_made=water_tap or man_made=water_point or man_made=water_supply or ... + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water * currently exists amenity=water_point ... I find it a bad tag, this one I would consider to maybe deprecate and link as a equivalent amenity=water_point = amenity=drinking_water + man_made=[to_be_chosen] and it should not implies drinking_water=yes. a fountain for cultural / decorational / recreational purposes [often not suitable for drinking]: amenity=fountain (man_made=fountain is maybe more logical... and here 2x amenity can clash) * if it is drinking water, a workaround would be two features, ideally a node amenity=drinking_water within an area (however small) amenity=fountain. Some fountains are also detailed with an area of natural=water. toilets with drinking water amenity=toilets and amenity=drinking_water as two features (2 nodes or area+node) drinking fountain amenity=drinking_water + [opt] man_made=* (man_made=fountain if there is a need?) Either way, the slightly conflicting tag are amenity=[non_]drinking_water and drinking_water=yes/no. They should be linked and treated together in algorithms. I think amenity=drinking_water is a valuable tag because it is useful to people. It makes sense to use it alone. drinking_water=yes alone on a node makes less sense IMO. water_point and water_tap should not assume ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
I don't think the drinkable quality of water should be the prime criteria to tag water sources (or a reason to use amenity=*) A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either the water is drinkable or not. This data should be introduced with a tag drinkable=yes/no or any other values giving information about the drinkable quality of water for humans. I agree with the approach of Althio on man_made. *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux 2015-01-16 15:50 GMT+01:00 althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com: I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help. @Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water It feels like a good start and compromise. Either can be associated with a more physical feature that represents an outlet of a water network. A few tagging examples... any point with drinking water: amenity=drinking_water + [opt] man_made=* a well: man_made=water_well + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water a tap: man_made=water_tap + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water a water point: man_made=water_tap or man_made=water_point or man_made=water_supply or ... + [opt] amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water * currently exists amenity=water_point ... I find it a bad tag, this one I would consider to maybe deprecate and link as a equivalent amenity=water_point = amenity=drinking_water + man_made=[to_be_chosen] and it should not implies drinking_water=yes. a fountain for cultural / decorational / recreational purposes [often not suitable for drinking]: amenity=fountain (man_made=fountain is maybe more logical... and here 2x amenity can clash) * if it is drinking water, a workaround would be two features, ideally a node amenity=drinking_water within an area (however small) amenity=fountain. Some fountains are also detailed with an area of natural=water. toilets with drinking water amenity=toilets and amenity=drinking_water as two features (2 nodes or area+node) drinking fountain amenity=drinking_water + [opt] man_made=* (man_made=fountain if there is a need?) Either way, the slightly conflicting tag are amenity=[non_]drinking_water and drinking_water=yes/no. They should be linked and treated together in algorithms. I think amenity=drinking_water is a valuable tag because it is useful to people. It makes sense to use it alone. drinking_water=yes alone on a node makes less sense IMO. water_point and water_tap should not assume ___ 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 - Water tap
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com wrote: A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either the water is drinkable or not. Here you join the other thread about philosophy of tagging. Some people describe an object, others describe a service. You see a fountain or a tap and you don't care much if water is drinkable or not (you prioritize the object description above its functionality). But many other contributors, bikers for instance, want to find drinkable water points along the route and don't care if it's a tap or a fountain (functionality more important than the shape). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
It seems that Pieren and I agree on most points. @François Maybe drinkable water is a very special case... but here service/use is much more important than object/feature. The ability to find this water on a map or from any data consumer is useful. It can even be essential to many people from hikers and bikers to inhabitants and humanitarian NGO where water is in short supply. Also consider the possibility of a open data import of geolocalised water points. We should import them for added value even if the supporting physical man_made=* is unknown. You must tag what you know and what is useful. man_made=water_[object] is useful. amenity=drinking_water/non_drinking_water is useful. Let's tag one or the other and both when we can. For me there is no conflict or hierarchy between these two keys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Hi all, 1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw was Warin's answer to Pieren's questions from 13 January. No response appeared in my Gmail, so I went on with the standard procedure and closed the proposal. Today, after reading a seemingly disconnected post from althio, I went to check the tagging list archive and discovered all emails from yesterday and today. 2. Having said this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that people who currently actively oppose the proposal have not participated in a 4-month discussion, where most of the current concerns were raised and analysed. At the same time, those who participated earlier don't join the current discussion. I could understand if they found it a waste of time and, honestly, I don't understand why you guys were silent for so long. Pieren indeed posted one comment in the discussion page, to which I answered and haven't received any further feedback until now (3 months later). 3. Someone mentioned that other discussions took more than a year. I haven't decided to close the discussion after 4 months. It simply converged and actually someone else proposed to go for voting (thus the group was 1 person, Marc :)). So this discussion once again shows the problems in the current proposal process. 4. To cool things down: Even if the participants of the re-started discussion all vote against the proposal, it will still leave the result intact (it would add Marc, Althio and Janko if they haven't voted and bring the result to 11:8). However, if a better solution is proposed, I'll be happy to go on and vote for deprecating the current tag and introducing a better one. That was on the process. Now, to the actual discussion: 5. If I understand right, the main concern of the water_tap opponents is the conflict between man_made=water_tap and amenity=drinking_water. I wonder why no concern is raised about the drinking_water key. It provides the full functionality of amenity=drinking_water and more (since it allows the no and conditional values as well as the legal subtag). So there is a direct conflict but I haven't seen any proposal to deprecate drinking_water=*. 6. I find amenity=non_drinking_water a poor solution in general: it implies that the mapper knows that water is non-potable. This is not always the case. Not only it may not be known (marked); people may have different attitude to the same kind-of-potable water source. Non_drinking_water also doesn't indicate whether the water may be made potable. Note that this is asymmetric to amenity=drinking_water, which is *always* potable. 7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution than amenity=drinking_water: 7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated amenity, and still be very useful: e.g. a public toilet in a well-developed country can provide access to drinking water, but it's not an amenity=drinking_water, it is amenity=toilet. Marking one thing with two amenity nodes is possible but (1) it's a workaround rather than a nice solution; (2) I think many people, especially tourists from less developed countries, may not even understand such tagging and will be looking for a dedicated amenity. 7.2) Drinking water may come in a huge variety of forms, for many of which there are dedicated tags. If you care about water-deprived tourists or NGOs, you should also think about water_well, water_point, spring, toilet, water and landuse tags. All of them are potentially hiding potable water from users, and most of them are not amenities. This means that if a tourist wants to find the nearest source of potable water, all these objects should be tagged with drinking_water=yes and the map users should search for this tag rather than for amenity=drinking_water. Therefore I would start a separate discussion on how to make sure that all sources of potable water are tagged with drinking_water=yes. 8. Most importantly: The water_tap tag was initiated to solve a specific problem without causing any additional conflicts, namely to provide the means to tag water taps *independent* from whether water is potable or not. That is to map an object, for which there is currently no means in OSM at all. After some discussion and attempts to find alternative tagging, the current proposal was found to be an optimal compromise because: 8.1) it is under man_made (there was a suggestion to make it an amenity), meaning that it can be used together with amenity=drinking_water to specify the type of the source; 8.2) it is very similar in all ways to man_made=water_well (again, I haven't seen any doubts on that one), so it should look logical to mappers; 8.3) it provides good means to tag a water source where there
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Dear all, As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with clean up. I appreciate all the discussion and help from your side (it was my first proposal, so I didn't know exactly how it should be carried out). To those who voted against the proposal: Thanks to you too for consideration. There was a bunch of remarks concerning the clash between amenity=drinking_water and this proposal. As the discussion in this list has shown, those who voted in support of this proposal have been aware of the clash. The reason to introduce the new value was not to solve all water-related problems but to close the unfortunate gap provoking incorrect or improvised tagging. No better solution could have been identified during the extended and long discussion. So please consider this situation as a compromise. There was also a remark that the water tags should be reviewed. I fully support this idea. Let's start at the current Warin's discussion https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020941.html. Cheers, Kotya On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close. -1. Why would it be too late ? It is not because a small group of people (1?) decides that is time to vote, that others cannot object. regards m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Jan 14, 2015 5:53 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close. -1. Why would it be too late ? It is not because a small group of people (1?) decides that is time to vote, that others cannot object. Especially when they have raised early concerns https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/water_tap#amenity.3Ddrinking_water ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 10:45 +1100, Warin wrote: used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to [...] portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/ Minor correction: potable, not portable. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe: 2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com: I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. Have you also voted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting ? Yes, as Fanfouer I won't vote. I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to maintain it. Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains, springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to OSM would be a great beginning. We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some of them to best describe those features. Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4 months already! The time shouldn't be a problem here. 4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be completed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement And there is no need to ever have a vote. Most of the discussion as far as I remember where beyond man_made=water_tap. The proposal now is only about one tag and as I read it, it is no replacement but only a possible addition to amenity=drinking_water, though this could be better documented. Hope the rest of the discussion won't get lost and we already had similar problems with amenity=drinking_water + drinking_water=no. E.g. we need some rework of the whole issue and at least two tags where one could describe the method/structure to gain the water (well,tap ..). Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and provided my arguments. But now I'm asked to forward them on this mailing list (perhaps to see if I'm the only who disagrees). My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing amenity=drinking_water tag. And we get enough complains from newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion. The amenity=drinking_water tag is old and widely used (82.000 in taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the question referenced from the help site ([1]). I fully agree that we need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag amenity=drinking_water. I did not follow the whole discussion but when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first sentence in the wiki says This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. A bit later, there is a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where is the difference between man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes and amenity=drinking_water. And nowhere it says if drinking_water subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. What I don't like is what we have seen in the past with some proposals deliberately ambiguous about deprecating older tags because they know it is not very popular in the votes, and enforced the deprecation later, when the tag is moved to the adopted sections. I'm not personnally a big supporter of the amenity=drinking_water but I think the current proposal is not clear enough compared to the existing tags. Pieren [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com: I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. Have you also voted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting ? Yes, as Fanfouer I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to maintain it. Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains, springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to OSM would be a great beginning. We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some of them to best describe those features. Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4 months already! The time shouldn't be a problem here. 4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be completed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement All the best *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap Message-ID: capt3zjr3djv_s0krxhdmb4jgyv_9ztyigowux+1nhcmx-a7...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing amenity=drinking_water tag. And we get enough complains from newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion. The amenity=drinking_water tag is old and widely used (82.000 in taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the question referenced from the help site ([1]). I fully agree that we need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag amenity=drinking_water. I did not follow the whole discussion but when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first sentence in the wiki says This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. A bit later, there is a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where is the difference between man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes and amenity=drinking_water. And nowhere it says if drinking_water subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. Pieren I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close. 1) amenity=drinking_water The wiki has photos of blubbers - one tap. And that is what I have used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to only reference blubbers or things that are meant for the human to directly consume water. But that is another discussion! And should be raised as a separate issue/subject to attract attention to it on that topic ONLY. amenity=drinking_water needs clarification. Without any other tag for a tap .. well I'll use it inappropriately as I have no other choice... is that a solution that is acceptable? Or should I use amenity=water_point .. though it is not intended for large quantities of water? 2) Taps. They need a tag. There is nothing suitable. Sub tags for them have been discussed and there is a lot in them .. but they again should be a separate topic/subject as they could be applied to other water objects. Voting 'no' on taps .. to me means we should not tag taps. May be I should not map blubbers either ! Not clear to me what amenity=drinking_water means exactly? And then there is the old chestnut of highway=footway and highway=path. That is a ridiculous thing .. and to justify it saying it is historical is no justification at all.If the tag tap is better then why reject it due to a less suitable tag being present? Just so the less suitable tag continues? 3) alternatives ? amenity=water_point with sub tags portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/ temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling tap=yes/no flow_rate=l/m spigot=plain/threaded ? others? Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/? Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a level should be a new discussion. == There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very basic level, are 'we' tagging _what things are_ ... or _what they are used for_? Both have been used, but there should be a fundamental decision to go one way or the other. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Hi Kotya, Thank you for this proposal and for the work around to complete it. In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of lack of consistency with many other tags. Such water taps may be part of larger networks with many kind of features. Building a proposal for each particular feature will result in many different keys (man_made, natural, water, drinking_water) where one or two may do the trick. Some of these keys (like man_made) are used just because we don't have any other dedicated key. The reflection should be done globally to get a consistent tagging scheme. I know any network like water networks are difficult to understand since most of them are hidden underground but we can start with any visible stuff everyone can see. I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. All the best. *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux 2015-01-11 11:58 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com: Dear all, This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
