Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Warin]

On 6/10/22 10:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone


On 5 Oct 2022, at 15:26, Jass Kurn  wrote:

When it should be, as a suggestion,  drinking_water:type=bubbler, or 
drinking_water:type=bottle_refill.


these tags are misleading, you are not describing drinking water, hence it is 
not a suitable approach IMHO.
amenity=drinking_water is not only used for fountains, some may be springs or 
water taps, it is a very generic tag which has the essential information for 
thirsty people, the fountain key can be added to some of them to further 
specify the feature. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.



Another issue.. tagging non drinking water ... may have the same 
physical properties as a drinking water feature other than the quality 
of the water...



So .. ???

amenity=water - as the main tag - exists but marked as depreciated... 
says 'here is water'. This is more generic than amenity=drinking_water.


secondary tags

drinking_water=yes/no/* .. already exists

drinking_water:legal=yes/no already exists


I think the above should depreciate amenity=drinking_water as it is more 
generic.




Then the question of delivery ???

water_direction=up/down/horizontal/upwards ?

something for the application - for 
dogs/cats/horses/humans/hose/bottle_refill/*


water:for=dog/cats/animals/humans/hose/trough/* Each would need a 
precise description...



The question of the physical structure used to deliver the water


couplings:type=plain/threaded/storz/camlock/* exists for fire hydrants 
.. but needs some added values.


couplings:diameters=* exists ... though I think the inner diameters 
should be used as what is seen.



Tap if it exists?

tap=yes/no

Some may want to tag the tap actuator?

tap:actuator=leaver/handle/light_beam/*

Some may want to tag the structural style of the thing

structure:style=nasone/*


---

Rendering?


If direction upwards and water:for=humans then render as for bubbler - 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg/278px-Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg.png 
else;


If tap=yes. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/France_road_sign_ID29.svg/337px-France_road_sign_ID29.svg.png 
else;


as a water drop, singular.


colour blue if drinkable

colour brown if not drinkable.


Add tap if tap=yes. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/France_road_sign_ID29.svg/337px-France_road_sign_ID29.svg.png











___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[martianfreeloader]

That's already in use in the same proposal.

gender=any - all genders allowed, unknown if there is segregation
gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated
gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation

I was wondering if we can replace gender=unisex by something which has 
the same meaning. Currently, gender=mixed is used instead.



On 06/10/2022 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

gender=any?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader 
mailto:martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>> wrote:


In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it
strange
to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex
and gender are different properties).

Proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender


My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex.
However,
the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still
easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at the
time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be
great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.

Any comments?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
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] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Warin]

On 5/10/22 22:44, Illia Marchenko wrote:
Alternative to the sport=soccer is sport=british_football because 
"football" is context specific, and "American football", "Australian 
football", "Canadian football", "Gaelic football" exists.



In parts of Britain 'football' is rugby ...

For some people in Australia 'football' is soccer, others rugby, others 
AFL (OSM 'australian_football').





ср, 5 окт. 2022 г., 13:52 martianfreeloader 
:


There is a broad consensus that the language for OSM tags is British
English. Using a non-BE word for a tag because it is used in
Australia
while a synonymous BE word exists, would be the same using a Xhosa,
Portuguese or Korean word, just because it exists.

I know there are a few exceptions like sport=soccer, footway=sidewalk
and sidewalk=*, but I think this kind of exceptions shouldn't be made
without a very good reason.



On 05/10/2022 12:04, Warin wrote:
>
> On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết:
>>> I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag being promoted? Which
>>> appears to be an American English term for a British English
drinking
>>> fountain. Why promote another term, and use an American
English term.
>>> What was wrong with calling a drinking fountain a drinking
fountain?
>>
>> To clarify, "bubbler" is a distinctively regional term in Boston,
>> Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Elsewhere, it's either "drinking
>> fountain" or "water fountain". [1]
>
>
> No. 'Bubbler' is also used in Australia. And possibly elsewhere
is the
> world.
>
> -
>
> In England it looks like a "Drinker Water Fountain" spurts water
> upwards. There are some with elevated outlets described as water
bottle
> filler, but are at a height that is convenient to drink from
with flow
> rates to suit direct human consumption.
>
>
> Things that direct water downwards? And have flow rates greater
than
> convenient for human consumption? To me, these are 'taps'.
>
>
> The problem?
>
>
> 1) identify feature that provided drinkable water - fairly
basic. At the
> moment the common amenity=drinking_water does this .. or the
secondary
> tag of drinking_water=yes.



This fails to consider the supply of water that is not drinkable ... 
thus complicating the tagging.


So I have revised this in another message.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I think the above should depreciate amenity=drinking_water as it is 
more generic. 
I do like this approach, however it forces people to actually describe 
several features when entering data in the database rather than just 
writing "here you can drink".


While I might like this, I think this is a lost cause unless we are able 
to define a way to indicate all the other elements that should be used.



At this point what would be the main tag? amenity=water could work, but 
it's quite misleading. If I'm tagging a well I feel that the main tag 
should describe that it is a well, same for drinking fountains springs 
and so on.


Thus, relegating drinking_water to a secondary tag works well only after 
all the main tags have been clearly defined.



I'm not sure where this whole discussion is going, people don't even 
agree on the specific dialect to use. I think that the wording is quite 
irrelevant and that we should focus on the structure.



water_direction=up/down/horizontal/upwards 
water:for=dog/cats/animals/humans/hose/trough/couplings:diameters=*

tap=yes/no tap:actuator=leaver/handle/light_beam/*
structure:style=nasone/* 


I do like all the proposals you make.

I feel we should find a way to describe a man made object used to 
deliver water. Wells, fountains, drinking fountains, bottle fillers, 
sinks and so on.



Currently we have:

man_made=water_well

amenity=fountain

amenity=water_point

man_made=water_tap

man_made=drinking_fountain

amenity=watering_place


Some of these tags overlap very much.

I feel that the tag for wells works well (!).

On the other point there's a big issue with fountains: amenity=fountain 
is used both to indicate decorative fountains and service ones.


man_made=drinking_fountain duplicates the secondary value fountain=drinking.

man_made=water_tap describes any generic water distribution system which 
has a tap, thus it overlaps with many secondary values of 
amenity=fountain and with man_made=drinking_fountain. I feel that 
man_made=water_tap is quite useless in this regard and might very well 
be substituted for a tap=yes secondary value.


amenity=watering_place describes both natural and artificial 
places/objects according to its use and not to what it actually is.



With all these tags, there is still no way to properly describe a place 
with a pipe that provides water which is not drinkable and not decorative.


For example a public tap where you can wash clothes, which I guess you 
could tag as amenity=fountain, drinking_water=no but that does not 
differentiate it from a decorative fountain. 
http://www.sigecweb.beniculturali.it/images/fullsize/ICCD1062849/ICCD14187593_00116449%20%2D%20FOTO3B.JPG



I feel the first thing to decide is whether amenity=fountain should be 
used both for decorative fountains and service fountains (as it is now) 
or not and then either define some sensible secondary values of 
fountain=* or decide which other main tags should be used to describe 
all these other things.


I personally would prefer using fountain=* to describe all these things, 
but I have no strong feelings about it.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:41:21AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 5 Oct 2022, at 15:26, Jass Kurn  wrote:
> > 
> > The tag amenity=fountain was created to map the entity/object known in 
> > English as fountains, and is documented in the OSM wiki with several 
> > pictures of fountains. eg
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fountain_at_Milan_citadel.JPG
> 
Definitely a fountain.

> 
> what about structures like these, how would you call them? 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ATÜ-Markt-2.jpg

Perhaps a fountain as one tag, although pretty dubious. Primarily something
else requiring local knowledge.

> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFontana_delle_Anfore,_Roma,_Italia_Feb_25,_2021_10-54-44_AM.jpeg
> 

Not a fountain as far as I can see from the picture.

> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWall_fountain,_Roma,_Italia_Sep_01,_2020_12-33-55_PM.jpeg
> 

Definitely not a fountain.

These all in British English.

ael

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6 Oct 2022, at 14:00, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> I feel that man_made=water_tap is quite useless in this regard and might very 
> well be substituted for a tap=yes secondary value.


these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a property.

both can be used, but typical applications will be different.



> 
> amenity=watering_place describes both natural and artificial places/objects 
> according to its use and not to what it actually is.
> 


it actually is a watering_place :)


> 
> With all these tags, there is still no way to properly describe a place with 
> a pipe that provides water which is not drinkable and not decorative.



natural=spring?
whoelse would have a pipe with nonpotable water and without a tap?
there is also something for tailing ponds.

Can you give an example what you want to tag and cannot?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6 Oct 2022, at 11:41, ael via Tagging  wrote:
> 
> Definitely not a fountain.
> 
> These all in British English.


these all fountains in German and Italian, basically any sculpture with water 
around it or emerging from it is a fountain, particularly if the water is in 
movement.

In German, even wells are “fountains” (same word).

Basically I believe you can uphold your ideas about the meaning of fountain 
maybe in Britain, but would be surprised about the tagging in many other places.

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6 Oct 2022, at 14:00, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> For example a public tap where you can wash clothes, which I guess you could 
> tag as amenity=fountain, drinking_water=no but that does not differentiate it 
> from a decorative fountain. 
> http://www.sigecweb.beniculturali.it/images/fullsize/ICCD1062849/ICCD14187593_00116449%20%2D%20FOTO3B.JPG


while I can imagine it could get tagged as a fountain, there is a specific tag 
that could apply:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dlavoir

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Zeke Farwell]

The proposal currently states:

> Meaning of the unisex =yes
> is currently unclear:
>
>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>- facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.
>
> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well understood
among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".  Unisex never refers to a
gender segregated facility.  A tag gender=unisex meaning "gender neutral"
would be perfectly clear.  gender=mixed would probably be understood, but
"mixed gender" is not a commonly used phrase so it would probably have more
potential for mis-interpretation.  gender=neutral would probably be more
widely understood, but again, I don't see the issue with gender=unisex.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 4:16 AM martianfreeloader <
martianfreeloa...@posteo.net> wrote:

> That's already in use in the same proposal.
>
> gender=any - all genders allowed, unknown if there is segregation
> gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated
> gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation
>
> I was wondering if we can replace gender=unisex by something which has
> the same meaning. Currently, gender=mixed is used instead.
>
>
> On 06/10/2022 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > gender=any?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader
> > mailto:martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it
> > strange
> > to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex
> > and gender are different properties).
> >
> > Proposal:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender
> > 
> >
> > My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex.
> > However,
> > the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still
> > easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at
> the
> > time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be
> > great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:56:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 6 Oct 2022, at 11:41, ael via Tagging  wrote:
> > 
> > Definitely not a fountain.
> > 
> > These all in British English.
> 
> 
> these all fountains in German and Italian, basically any sculpture with water 
> around it or emerging from it is a fountain, particularly if the water is in 
> movement.
> 
> In German, even wells are “fountains” (same word).
 
Just feeding in what I think is standard UK usage which I thought was the
default for tags. But I don't have very strong views on this.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a property.

both can be used, but typical applications will be different.


Yes, I meant that there is no need for such feature since it overlaps 
with other features and could very well be described as a property of 
one of those features.


For example, man_made=water_tap cannot coexist with 
man_made=drinking_fountain thus, in the wiki it currently advises to tag 
a water fountain that has a tap as man_made=water_tap drinking_fountain=yes.


In this way, you'll have to tag anything that has a tap as a secondary 
value of man_made=water_tap.




it actually is a watering_place :)
There is no way to discern a man made structure for the purpose from a 
naturally occurring pond.




Can you give an example what you want to tag and cannot?
I think the example I gave is appropriate. natural=spring does not apply 
since it is not a naturally occurring spring and water comes from a 
centralized water system. I wouldn't like to tag it as amenity=lavoir 
since I would rather use that to describe large places where more than 
one person could wash their clothes at the same time.




whoelse would have a pipe with nonpotable water and without a tap?
I have seen these things in a lot of places and I think we should be 
able to describe them.


You can also look at these fountains which are not used to clean clothes.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2EH9RCG/perrier-france-10th-feb-2021-non-potable-water-fountain-prohibited-for-dogs-place-du-coudert-in-perrier-france-2EH9RCG.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HWNYRY/tap-at-a-village-fountain-with-eau-non-potable-sign-indicating-the-HWNYRY.jpg


You can use these to clean yourself or at times attach a pipe to water 
plants and stuff like that.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 22:00, Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> With all these tags, there is still no way to properly describe a place
> with a pipe that provides water which is not drinkable and not decorative.
>

Throwing another one into the mix - taps in camp grounds & similar where
they can't fully guarantee the quality, so they're signed "We recommend you
boil this water before drinking"?

drinking = yes after boiling?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] A broader tagging perspective (was Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain)

[stevea]

"Viewing from higher altitudes" here, it should be said that "tagging," tagging 
improvements, "how we better tag into the future..." all seem to be getting 
more difficult as OSM grows.  One fundamental that just emerged is "no need for 
such a feature since it overlaps with other features and could very well be 
described as a property of one of those features."  Others then chimed in said 
"hey, we have a long legacy of some tagging which we cannot or should not 
simply discard."

These are (often) at odds with one another.  They both have merit:  OSM must 
grow, OSM must expand ontologies and tagging schemes so they are newer, 
smarter, easier-to-understand, with a more-international/worldwide perspective 
than they have had, yet we must also respect that OSM has had 18 years to "grow 
up and become an adult" and it did so with many, many existing tags which 
persist today and are sturdy components of our map (and renderers, and routers 
and other downstream use cases).  In many cases, these "legacy" tags are not 
really legacy at all, they are simply "what is" and they will remain into the 
future.  Sometimes, other schemes will grow "around" them, leaving them in 
place, but growing into the future (an example, public_transport:version=1 and 
2).

However, I've also "grown up" with OSM for most of its life, and I've 
experience the pain of both "wholesale discard" of older tags (HEY, what 
happened to all my work, those beautiful renderings, the routing that was so 
clever...) and the real growth that newer tagging brings.  So, it's a mixed 
bag, it has its benefits, it has its growing pains, too.

Without proposing anything in particular (I'm "flying at a high altitude" for 
exactly that perspective and reason), let's try to keep this in mind.  We don't 
want to "throw the baby out with the bath water" (and English idiom that means 
to discard too much because things get a little muddy) but at the same time, we 
must grow, and we should respect the legacy tagging that got us here.  Balances 
CAN be struck.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 7, 2022, 01:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>> these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a 
>> property.
>>
>> both can be used, but typical applications will be different.
>>
>
> Yes, I meant that there is no need for such feature since it overlaps with 
> other features and could very well be described as a property of one of those 
> features.
>
But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
if technically possible.

Feel free to start new thread describing benefits/costs of such action.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[stevea]

Yes, I agree with Mateusz:  I would find deprecation of amenity=drinking_water 
to be highly problematic.  It is a very long-established tag.

On Oct 6, 2022, at 10:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:
> But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
> if technically possible.
> 
> Feel free to start new thread describing benefits/costs of such action.


> Oct 7, 2022, 01:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a 
> property.
> 
> both can be used, but typical applications will be different.
> 
> Yes, I meant that there is no need for such feature since it overlaps with 
> other features and could very well be described as a property of one of those 
> features.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging