Humm Only 3 people are concerned enough to vote.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
So those concerned with the sub tags won't get to discus them.
Apathetic? Or?
/rant/ I joined this group so I could vote for things .. to get them
through due to the inactivity
Hi Martin and all,
It seems to me we can discuss it in great detail and agree on something,
but the users will understand—and use—the proposed (or even non-existing)
tags it in their own way. They will not have followed this discussion and
many will not even read the corresponding wiki-page.
2014-12-30 21:33 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I agree.
Voting page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Thanks everyone for the in-depth consideration.
now, that this has fortunately become something more simple (e.g. not
implying
On 2/01/2015 11:00 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 11:31:36 +0100
From: Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Message
On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river,
lake, spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Einverstanden :)
Please vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
For me, English common sense says a 'water source'
:
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:18:28 -0800
From: Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap (Kotya
Karapetyan)
Message-ID:
CAC9LFPe1V1VMf
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
not sure if purity is a good choice. Completely pure water is not
potable (distilled water), you'd die if you drank too much (OK, you'll also
die when drinking too much normal water [1], but the second too much
On 29/12/2014 9:33 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:18:28 -0800
From: Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest the tag for taps go ahead for voting. But remove all the
purity/potable things .. just vote on the tap. I don't see any problem
there.
The proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
? On the Keep It Simple Stupid theory?
water_potable = yes/no
If not known you don't tag. Then it will some default action possibly based
on location. Some may want tags 'boil', 'filter','filter+boil' ...
What would be the difference from the existing drinking_water=*?
True. There could be chemical contamination which would not be removed by
filtering or boiling, and which would render the water unsafe to drink.
On December 5, 2014 4:05:09 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-12-05 0:42 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
2014-12-05 0:42 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
water_potable = yes/no If not known you don't tag. Then it will some
default action possibly based on location. Some may want tags 'boil',
'filter','filter+boil' ...
values like boil or filter could go under a key like
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river, lake,
spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and 'unknown'
On 4/12/2014 8:32 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:31:55 +0100
From: Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Message
2014-12-04 12:03 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
The main choice for water tap is between man_made = water_tap or amenity
= water_tap. I have no firm idea on either choice. If I have too now I'd
chose man_made=water_tap. Fits with man_made=water_well .. though not with
amenity=shower and
On 5/12/2014 2:46 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:22:15 +0100
From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap (Kotya
2014-12-02 21:50 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I see hierarchy and encapsulation of tags as the means to achieve these
three goals. That's why I also would like to avoid going outside the
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
in analogy: water:effervescent (or ~:sparkling)
I don't mind using the word effervescent; however: is there any
recommendation that we should use as simple words as possible, to achieve
the above goals 1 and 3? I know this for scientific papers
On 4/12/2014 10:14 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:13:43 +0100
From: Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Message-ID
There are a number of possible shades of potable:
* It's not designated, but in an area where all faucet water is
potable (e.g. major cities, fountains in rome).
* It's designated potable.
* It's designated as untested (e.g. drink at your own risk)
* It's designated non-potable by color or
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-17 23:26 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find
a good English-language
2014-11-17 23:26 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find a
good English-language analogue, could someone help please?)
I'd make this water:quality and values potable |
On 2014-11-18 at 11:11:30 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd make this water:quality and values potable | mineral | de:heilwasser
(or an English correspondent if available, or DE:heilwasser because it
refers to German legislation)
maybe also add toxic / contaminated(?), non-potable
not
2014-11-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com:
* can be drinked after filtering
* can be drinked after boling / sterilizing
* too contaminated for easy treatment
yes, the kind of contamination could matter (biological / chemical /
radioactive) in some (IMHO rare)
On 18/11/2014 9:53 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:25:34 +0100
From: Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Message-ID: 20141118102516.gd2
On 2014-11-18 at 11:46:51 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-11-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com:
* can be drinked after filtering
could be drunk after filtering: I guess almost everything can be
filtered/decontaminated with adequate equipment, time and if
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find a
good English-language analogue, could someone help please?)
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
water_source:nonpotable=compromised | designated
In principle, details regarding
Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. This water is non-potable is very
different from I am not sure you can drink it. This is why I tend to go
for a generic water source tag with an additional potability
specification.
Taking into
I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
implications of amenity=drinking_water.
2014-11-13 9:39 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. This water is
2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com:
A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and disinfect
water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is
important to know when traveling in the area.
while this is true, I'm not sure if I
2014-11-13 10:02 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
implications of amenity=drinking_water.
FWIW, here in Italy we have a lot of public drinking water fountains (in
Rome alone there are at least several
2014-11-13 6:50 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
Let's start with the cases:
* Designated potable, as in from a city tap.
* Designated non-potable, as in from a farm ditch, or purple pipe (USA).
This would include designated irrigation water of most sorts.
* Potable but with a
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an
On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100
From: Pierenpier...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31
Message-ID:
in the late 1980’s, they put non-potable signs on many springs in national
parks because of the uncertainty of bacteria in the water (from horse poop),
though people had been drinking from them since the parks creation (and
earlier).
There are places where access to water via spring or other
As a as seasonal volunteer with the US Forest Service I have a little more
nuanced view: In the area I help out at there two big things on the long list
of causes for the FS to stop showing water as potable.
First, water quality standards have been tightened over the years so some
natural
First, water quality standards have been tightened over the years so some
natural sources of water, which are as good or bad as they've ever been, now
fall below revised quality standards. My personal view is those particular
sources are still safe for me but liability would keep me from
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
amenity=nonpotable_water
with a hose size specified (e.g. MHT or GHT for the United States,
BSP
elsewhere)
drinking_water=yes/no
an attribute on something else, such as a campsite, cabin or toilet
OK, so
If you can only chose between potable and non-potable - in this case
tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value.
2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Nov
Bryce,
Thanks for your comments.
Tagging amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no makes, at least, the WeTap
Android application show a false source of drinkable water.
It renders on many maps indistinguishable from potable water.
As I already said in the previous email, I think the only
2014-11-05 20:32 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
It looks like the best solution would be to have amenity=water,
drinkable=*, type=fountain|tap|water_well.
not sure if this is best. Water that is not drinkable is not an amenity
in my book ;-)
As a sidenote, the key type is
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-11-05 20:32 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
It looks like the best solution would be to have amenity=water,
drinkable=*, type=fountain|tap|water_well.
That does not sound best at all,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 saba...@gmail.com:
I use
amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no
I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-)
IMHO we shouldn't tag like this.
This is not
Also keep in mind. When camping, water availability is highly relevant.
The most relevant cases seem to be:
- potable drinking water is available
- water is available, but the authorities recommend filtering or
treating it. Such water may or may not come from a tap.
- water is *not
Hi Martin and all,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
the suggestion at
2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
the suggestion at
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water.
So this is fixed.
IMHO
Sorry, I have missed the discussion due to my poor management of email
accounts.
I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
the suggestion at
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water.
So this is fixed.
As
2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 saba...@gmail.com:
I use
amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no
I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-)
IMHO we shouldn't tag like this.
This is not really comparable to entrance=exit (as any exit physically
might be used as an entrance
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM, sabas88 saba...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it's nonsensical but...
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=entrance%3Dexit
It's like Microsoft story where you have to click on 'start' to stop
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM, sabas88 saba...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it's nonsensical but...
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=entrance%3Dexit
It's like Microsoft story where you have to click on 'start' to stop windows...
But it is not because someone didn't make the best choice
On 10.10.2014 19:05, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
I would hereby like to propose a new value for the man_made tag:
man_made=water_tap
The proposal page is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
My question: Why man_made? All the other water-related things are
amenity
Dear all,
I would hereby like to propose a new value for the man_made tag:
man_made=water_tap
The proposal page is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
Thanks for comments in advance!
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
2014-10-10 19:05 GMT+02:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
I would hereby like to propose a new value for the man_made tag:
man_made=water_tap
The proposal page is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
Hi,
I use
amenity=drinking_water +
55 matches
Mail list logo
