Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

> Please keep in mind that OSM is about local knowledge so the important > question is if people locally drink the water or not. & there are any number of places in the world where the local population happily drink water, that visitors from first-world countries would turn away from in horror!

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Le 10. 01. 18 à 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > 2018-01-10 18:19 GMT+01:00 marc marc : > > maybe it's time to split tag and render in 2 > this is the tagging ML, for style decisions of osm carto see here: I agree but check first message of this threat :) remove the "render" part of

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:19:08 + marc marc wrote: > maybe it's time to split tag and render in 2 > > what the objet look like : fountain, tap, trough, pipe, well > that can tag using existing amenity or man_made key. > the render already have a icon for some of

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2018-01-10 18:19 GMT+01:00 marc marc : > maybe it's time to split tag and render in 2 this is the tagging ML, for style decisions of osm carto see here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto or maybe on talk. We're discussing how to describe objects

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

maybe it's time to split tag and render in 2 what the objet look like : fountain, tap, trough, pipe, well that can tag using existing amenity or man_made key. the render already have a icon for some of them. the quality of the water blue if unknown, green if it's drinkable, red if it's not

[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

In my area where I usually maping, there are no public sources of drinking water where the water is not suitable for drinking or I do not know that. I Think for sure this tag is extremely important in countries, areas with more difficult access to clean water. Maybe as I will be more often in such

[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Hi! I just want to point out that the tag drink water=yes/no is regulated by top-down rules. I have no doubts here. Certainly in all civilized countries. Personally, I does not add information whether the water is drinking or not it has to be assessed on the spot by the end user of the map. I

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2018-01-10 16:31 GMT+01:00 Cez jod : > > every country has its own sanitary regulations. > to refrain what Christoph said: we don't require mappers to perform lab analytics, it is sufficient that people believe it is drinking water in order to tag it like this. Cheers,

[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Hi! "In French for example "potable" means "drinkable (without problems)"" Always in different languages will be different meaning hence the problem with tagging. "Which law is that? And in which language? " How do you know that drinking water flows from your tap? The question is for e.g WHO

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Wednesday 10 January 2018, Cez jod wrote: > > Potable=yes/no means that water in any case should be boiled before > consumption (raw water) because it has not been tested in the > laboratory. That's the law. And the law is a function of the location. ;-)

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Which law is that? And in which language? In French for example "potable" means "drinkable (without problems)" I think you are a little inaccurate with your suggestion that drinking_water is an antonym of waste water/sewage. There is plenty of water out there which is neither - lakes and

[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Potable and drinking_water are not equal. drinking_water=yes means I can drink water straight from the source (tap, fountain, source) the water has been laboratory tested, so I know I can drink it without boiling. Potable=yes/no means that water in any case should be boiled before consumption

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2012/7/21 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: public parks, and on many trucks and railcars. On the other hand, I'd never heard of a trunk road before joining OSM. I still don't know any objective way to tell the difference between trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary, and unclassified roads

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 11:43 -0400, David ``Smith'' wrote: Just contributing another data point on vocabulary… I am a native English speaker from Ohio, USA. I have been aware of the term potable for many years,

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 22 July 2012 14:32, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I am a native English speaker from the UK, I have never seen the term potable used in the UK. Labels on taps use the term 'drinking water', or 'not drinking water'. Any council using the word 'potable' is likely to be slammed by

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Ilari Kajaste wrote On 13 July 2012 20:30, Martin Koppenhoefer lt;dieterdreist@gt; wrote: 2012/7/13 Ilari Kajaste lt;ilari.kajaste@gt;: 2) as a further definition for amenity=drinking_water either as 2a) quality attribute (e.g. drinking_water=untreated) or as 2b) type attribute

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 11:43 -0400, David ``Smith'' wrote: Just contributing another data point on vocabulary… I am a native English speaker from Ohio, USA. I have been aware of the term potable for many years, probably since asking what it meant after seeing a water source labeled

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Not specifically to roads, tertiary is the natural next step after primary and secondary; the next one would be quaternary, I think. In the US, official language pertaining to warnings and hazards tends to stick to older words like non-potable or inflammable. On Jul 22, 2012 9:33 AM, Philip

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Just contributing another data point on vocabulary… I am a native English speaker from Ohio, USA. I have been aware of the term potable for many years, probably since asking what it meant after seeing a water source labeled non-potable. I have seen that warning on taps in public parks, and on

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Steve Bennett wrote: Consolidate, yes (drinking_water, drinkable = drinking_water). Migrate, no (drinking_water, drinkable = potable) Are there any examples of successful migrations in the recent past? highway=gate to barrier=gate is one, I think. Done initially without bots, just by

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Bad example. power=station is a mess because we have one tag with different interpretations/meanings. Here, it's the opposite : we have several tags for the same meaning. Consolidate the wiki, the presets and the database makes

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 13 July 2012 05:35, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, I don't think we should assume other people are stupid and choose 'simple' words just for the sake of it. It seems that we all know what potable means, but we are worried that other mappers, whom we have never met,

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The suggestion of migrating drinkable=* to potable=* is just silly. In practice, it's very hard to 'migrate' any tag at all - even when there is a good reason, like the power=station mess. So let's just drop that idea.

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

+1 Apart from a water company person, I have never heard anyone use potable, in English it is jargon used in the industry. My understanding came from recognising a French word. Workplace taps are labelled as either drinking water, or not drinking water. I have never seen potable used. Phil --

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:02:27AM +0300, Ilari Kajaste wrote: On 13 July 2012 05:35, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, I don't think we should assume other people are stupid and choose 'simple' words just for the sake of it. It seems that we all know what potable means,

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

...@trigpoint.me.uk Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:22:48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolstagging@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Another anecdotal example: I'm a non-native speaker (being German) and I don't know a word in french. But I did know the term 'potable' very well. And so will everybody else who ever went camping in either New Zealand, Canada and probably many other English-speaking countries. Camp sites and

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:45:03 Ronnie Soak wrote: snip I do understand 'potable' and I believe others can do too. You either use translated presets or need to look it up in the wiki/taginfo anyway. I also expect anyone smart enough to use an osm editor can also use a translation tool. BUT: I

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2012/7/13 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com: OP says that drinkable=yes/no has more usage than drinking_water=yes/no, interestingly drinkable is mostly used for water that is NOT drinkable: no  1614 68.80% yes 689 29.37% while drinking_water is mostly used for drinking water: yes 296

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 13 July 2012 18:49, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: interestingly drinkable is mostly used for water that is NOT drinkable: no  1614 68.80% yes 689 29.37% while drinking_water is mostly used for drinking water: yes 296 44.85% no 23034.85% Yes 7811.82%

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2012/7/13 Ilari Kajaste ilari.kaja...@iki.fi: This isn't all that surprising. drinkable is an attribute, drinking_water is a service. Different types of things are used in different tagging contexts. please note that there are 2 kind of drinking_water: as a value (amenity=drinking_water)

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 13 July 2012 20:30, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/13 Ilari Kajaste ilari.kaja...@iki.fi: This isn't all that surprising. drinkable is an attribute, drinking_water is a service. Different types of things are used in different tagging contexts. please note that

[Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

The general tag for a source of drinkable water is amenity=drinking_water. But in some cases you will want to subtag an existing OSM-object (like an amenity=fountain) with the info that the water is drinkable. Apparently our free tagging schema has led to 2 alternative keys for this:

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Am 12.07.2012 14:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: The general tag for a source of drinkable water is amenity=drinking_water. But in some cases you will want to subtag an existing OSM-object (like an amenity=fountain) with the info that the water is drinkable. Apparently our free tagging schema

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:21:34 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The general tag for a source of drinkable water is amenity=drinking_water. But in some cases you will want to subtag an existing OSM-object (like an amenity=fountain) with the info that the water is drinkable. Apparently our free

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Can we introduce potable=yes/no and migrate both of those tags to it over time? Best wishes, Andrew +1 Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Am 12.07.2012 14:53, schrieb Andrew Errington: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:21:34 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The general tag for a source of drinkable water is amenity=drinking_water. But in some cases you will want to subtag an existing OSM-object (like an amenity=fountain) with the info that the

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 2012-07-12 at 15:07:28 +0200, aighes wrote: Am 12.07.2012 14:53, schrieb Andrew Errington: Can we introduce potable=yes/no and migrate both of those tags to it over time? In Germany there are some laws, about what Trinkwasser is. So there are different levels of saying this water is

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know if this is for consideration, but the word potable is not very known outside english speaking countries (and maybe french, because it comes from a french word). +1 Why not drinkable=official/yes/no? Why

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: Why not use drinking_water=official/yes/no (and perhaps /seasonal, which is true for some natural surface sources), which would use the already widely known and most_used(?) drinking water text string -- and

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Janko Mihelić wrote: I don't know if this is for consideration, but the word potable is not very known outside english speaking countries Or even inside them! I've never heard anyone use it in everyday speech. If I did I'd think they were referring to a snooker ball... cheers Richard --

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

2012/7/12 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:21:34 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can we introduce potable=yes/no and migrate both of those tags to it over time? this issue was already discussed 5 years ago ;-) Honestly, there were discussions in 2008, as

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

The only reason why I am in favour of potable is that drinkable is not quite the correct term in English as far am aware. drinkable means, at least in common language you can drink it, if you really need. The correct terms are *Drinking water* or *potable water* is

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

There is no problem with amenity=drinking_water. The problem arises if you want to indicate the water quality of, say, a fountain: amenity=fountain drinking/potable/drinkable=yes/no On 12 July 2012 17:41, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/12 Andrew Errington

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 07:20 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Janko Mihelić wrote: I don't know if this is for consideration, but the word potable is not very known outside english speaking countries Or even inside them! I've never heard anyone use it in everyday speech. If I did I'd think

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 17:41 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/7/12 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:21:34 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can we introduce potable=yes/no and migrate both of those tags to it over time? this issue was already discussed 5

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 07:20 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Janko Mihelić wrote: I don't know if this is for consideration, but the word potable is not very known outside english speaking countries Or even inside them! I've never heard

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/12 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com Can we introduce potable=yes/no and migrate both of those tags to it over time? I don't know if this is for consideration, but the word potable is not very known outside

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On 13.07.2012 02:12, Andrew Errington wrote: I expect that trunk road, roundabout, shelter and archaeological site are not well known in all languages, however, the language of OSM is English and potable has a very clear meaning. Wikipedia seems to think that potable water and drinking water

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: The language of OSM should be precise. If it's not then people start inventing tags that have similar, but imprecise meanings, which is exactly what has happened here. There's nothing more precise about 'potable'

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 13.07.2012 02:12, Andrew Errington wrote: I expect that trunk road, roundabout, shelter and archaeological site are not well known in all languages, however, the language of OSM is English and potable has a very