[Tagging] Hot springs
Hi, I have significantly changed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and enhancments. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:28:28PM +0100, Richard Z. wrote: Hi, I have significantly changed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and enhancments. just to clarify, among other changes I changed it from leisure= to natural= and the comments bellow the page are old comments.. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
Am 27.02.2014 15:28:13 schrieb(en) Vincent Pottier: What about drinking_water used also more than 3000 times ? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinkable (~3300) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinking_water (~3100) It seems that today drinkable=* is on standalone watering objects (fountains, springs...) and drinking_water=* is on other amenities or objects (shelter, toilets...). It seems also that the values should be the same. And it seems that drinking_water=* would fit both standalone objects and other objects, rather than drinkable. What do you think of amenity=toilets + drinkable=yes ? But in contrast, amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes sounds good. So I would be in favour of a single drinking_water tag having 6400 occurrences and a migration from drinkable to drinking_water tags. It is easy to migrate softly the drinkable to drinking_water by duplicating the tags in a first time and make the first obsolete. That's an interesting idea. No objection from me. I see a little problem in the legal relevance. IMHO drinkable=yes has no legal relevance. It means the water is drinkable, even without official control. Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging drinkable=official. The tag drinking_water=yes implicates somehow a legal relevance. I would like to tag a spring in the mountains with drinkable=yes, although you will never get a official clearance for this source of water. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
I don't like drinkable=official. I'd like drinkable=yes + drinkable:source=official. Janko 2014-03-02 18:35 GMT+01:00 Rudolf Martin rudolf.mar...@gmx.de: That's an interesting idea. No objection from me. I see a little problem in the legal relevance. IMHO drinkable=yes has no legal relevance. It means the water is drinkable, even without official control. Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging drinkable=official. The tag drinking_water=yes implicates somehow a legal relevance. I would like to tag a spring in the mountains with drinkable=yes, although you will never get a official clearance for this source of water. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
