sent from a phone
> On 18. Jan 2020, at 18:08, Florimond Berthoux
> wrote:
>
> Hi, I added my proposal:
>
> drinking_water:fee=yes/no
> drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite:
> drinking_water:fee:customers=no
> drinking_water:bottle=yes/no
>
> I think that the key
Joseph Eisenberg writes:
> That tag is probably emergency=suction_point - seems much better to
> tag that rather than identifying the whole pond.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dsuction_point
Sounds basically reasonable to me. The page does not make it clear if
this is
Hi Paul
++1
Hendrikklaas
Van: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Verzonden: donderdag 16 januari 2020 17:50
Aan: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 109
Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 18:37, European Water Project
a écrit :
> drinking_water:fee=yes/no
> drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite:
> drinking_water:fee:customers=no
> I can see how this works from a logic point of view, but still seems a bit
> convoluted
>
> I still
On 19.01.2020 06:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
department." 2785 uses
Why is that not verifiable? Such ponds typically have a red-framed sign
"Löschwasserteich".
Ground-verifiable, not necessarily Bing-verifiable.
I see how
