>Monday, September 7, 2020 4:23 AM -05:00 from Tobias Zwick
>:
>
>The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear why
>Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if
>there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no.
>Let me
In France, almost all water fountains not supplied from the residential
water network are marked as "non potable" - indiscriminately of whether
or not the water is drinking quality.
No proper legislation exists which allows local authorities to
intermittently test fountain water quality and be
I also thought about case where
water is commonly used as a drinking water
(for example camp site in mountains),
but there is no official testing or
official permission or any official oversight.
7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od o...@westnordost.de:
>
> The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I
The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not
clear why Mateusz proposed to use the
drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already the tag
drinking_water=yes/no.
Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:
* 1. There is a sign
sent from a phone
> On 7. Sep 2020, at 01:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there
> is strong
> reason to believe that water is drinkable
do I understand you correctly that in your interpretation
potable, and non potable, as in water lines separated in Florida.
>Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:01 PM -05:00 from Philip Barnes
>:
>
>On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
>> in the united states we say (portable)
>I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB.
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
> in the united states we say (portable)
I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Sep 7, 2020, 00:52 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
>
> why not use
> drinking_water=yes for these?
>
> Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that
> there is strong
> reason to
Sep 7, 2020, 00:52 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as
>> including
>> places where status is not explicitly signed but is
in the united states we say (portable)
>Sunday, September 6, 2020 5:52 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer
>:
>
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>
>> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which
sent from a phone
> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as
> including
> places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good
> (examples
> may include water fountains
That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as
including
places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good (examples
may include water fountains setup and maintained by city).
Sep 6, 2020, 20:39 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:
> if
if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer
Paul‘s suggestion:
drinking_water:legal=unsigned
+1
I also agree that this is a good suggestion
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 20:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz
sent from a phone
> On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown
if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s
suggestion:
drinking_water:legal=unsigned
sent from a phone
> On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water
the water could be contaminated at the end of it’s journey (conduits), and not
be suggested to drink although the general
Sep 6, 2020, 15:51 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> drinking_water:signed=no ?
>>
>
> Ambiguous. It might have a sign that says nothing about the legality.
>
> drinking_water:legal=unsigned?
>
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> drinking_water:signed=no ?
>
Ambiguous. It might have a sign that says nothing about the legality.
drinking_water:legal=unsigned?
drinking_water:legal=unknown?
--
Paul
We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,
we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.
Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes)
that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable
18 matches
Mail list logo
