Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

The new forum may be also more capable of handling large volume of 
posts - you can

easily mute threads and entire categories.


It's also possible to subscribe to only the first post in a category.

Thus, you may set to be notified whenever a new proposal is posted and 
only then choose if you're interested in such thread and subscribe to 
the replies.


If you're not interested in the proposal you have to do nothing: you 
receive the notification, read through whatever is proposed and close 
the web page.


Which is much better than filtering/muting threads on an email client 
for several reasons.



I do believe that if proposals were being announced on IRC all this 
time, we would now be extensively discussing about the major advantages 
of IRC over forums.


For reference: https://xkcd.com/1782/


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:fountain:design

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Hello, since I made some edits to my original proposal I have waited 
some extra time before starting a vote to wait for further comment, I 
received no such comments in the meanwhile and thus I'm now starting a 
voting for the key fountain:design. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

If it is indeed better (which I personally am not convinced), then why not
change the proposal to ask that, in addition to the tagging mailing list,
proposal might (or should?) be announced at *as many contact channels as
possible* of those listed athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels
(and the proponents should monitor all of them where they posted, and 
incorporete
ideas from then on wiki proposal page).


I'm talking about not cutting out people who use the *official* 
community channel rather than the mailing list; the forums are the first 
resource mentioned on the list you linked.


Since the mailing list has been the place where proposals where 
announced until now, it makes sense to keep announcing them there for 
the people using it.


I'm not saying that we should announce proposals on every communication 
channel people may come up with; I was talking about the mailing list 
since it's been used for this until now and the forum, since it's the 
official discussion platform.




We should work toward*reducing*  that fragmentation, not encouraging
increasing it.
In my opinion, moving everything to the forum is the best way to reduce 
fragmentation. I frankly don't see any great advantage offered by the 
mailing list that is greater than the ease of use of the forum for 
people who are not technologically competent. You have some 
disadvantages with the forum, but I think its inclusiveness is the most 
important factor to consider.


I work on a computer all day, writing software for quantum and 
statistical computations; thus using an email client which supports 
threading to partecipate to a mailing list is no problem to me, but it 
can be for many others.



I think this proposal, if it passes, will move more people towards the 
forums and I think that the mailing list will gradually be abandoned; 
this will reduce fragmentation.


I think this will happen because I believe that many more people will 
subscribe to the forum than to the mailing list, people that weren't 
previously using the mailing list, and thus I believe that most of the 
discussion will automatically move to the forum because most of the 
people discussing about things will be there.


I may be wrong with this; but on the forum you can already find a bunch 
of people that aren't here and that take part in tagging discussions 
from time to time, I believe this is a good indicator that what I'm 
forecasting could realistically happen.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

- if a mailing list user want to reply to a message on the forum,
he must subscribe/use the forum 
Note that this is already happening with some things being discussed 
both on the forum and on the mailing list without the requirement to 
post it there.


This has also been the norm until now with people writing on the wiki 
and other on the mailing list and nobody ever complained.



But the proposal is not about this, the proposal is about letting the 
people who are using the forum and not the mailing list know about 
proposals that are being made.


Since, as you say, the community will be split among the two 
communication channels, I don't really see why the people using one of 
the two should be favoured and naturally included in updates about 
tagging and the other ones shouldn't.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Manufacturer and Model

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Nice proposal, thank you.

I'll get to read it more thoroughly later.

On 13/11/22 11:39, Daniele Santini wrote:
Voting has started for the proposal "Manufacturer and Model": 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Manufacturer_and_Model 
.


The goal is to clarify the keys and the documentation for tagging the 
manufacturer and model of elements on the map.


Cheers

--
Daniele Santini
https://www.dsantini.it

___
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] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet 
proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet


I'm alright with using a name different from fountain since a lot of 
people disagree on that name.


By doing all this you're effectively deprecating amenity=fountain; 
that's strange to me.


I would not tag decorative fountains as tourism as those are not 
necessarily there for tourism; you have fountains in hidden places that 
have never seen a tourist...


Moreover, this would require retagging a lot of objects, and it cannot 
even be done mechanically because you'd end up mistagging the fountains 
which are not decorative.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 28/10/22 23:38, Matija Nalis wrote:

This stands, however in many places on this planet (and growing by the day) 
there is now limited amount of drinking
water, and we often simply cannot afford to waste it - however much we might 
prefer such luxuruios carelessness are
constantly flowing water...


Agreed, though we are talking about how to tag things that do exist and 
what their uses are; not about the advantages and disadvantages of 
fountain typologies.


Fountains with continuous flow exist and are quite common in many 
places, some people such as Martin prefer these fountains because the 
water does not warm up and thus having a tag letting them know where to 
find these may be useful.


We shouldn't, for example, refrain from tagging such things because we 
think they're dangerous or harmful for the environment or the economy.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Most of the outdoor fountains I have seen are not chilled.

You get water at a temperature lower than the external one because the 
pipes are underground, sometimes the water is very cold; especially in 
the mountains where it could come from a spring.



Having a tap which prevents the water from flowing lets the water stop 
within the fountain; if the fountain is under direct sunlight it may 
warm up, especially if the fountain is made out of metal.


Thus, when you use this kind of fountains you often let the water flow 
for a while in order to discard the warm water and to get the cold one 
from the underground pipes.


On 29/10/22 00:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 18:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:


you’ll have to wait a long time until the water becomes cold and
can be drunken.


That one is a comment that stood out to me?

Is the water in your "drinking fountains" chilled, or is it just the 
natural temperature of the water coming out?


Yes, we do have cooled (very rarely chilled!) water dispensers, 
usually indoors where power is available, but for drinking fountains 
in parks etc, what comes out is what you get to drink!


Thanks

Graeme


___
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] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Thank you Martin!

Do not worry, I have met you before and remember you as a very good person.

I have no hard feelings about that.

On 28/10/22 11:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 28 Oct 2022, at 10:46, Davidoskky via Tagging  
wrote:
I do not like the aggressiveness in this comment of yours;


I am sorry I wrote it like this, and agree it was not nice. Please accept  my 
apologies.

Cheers Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 28/10/22 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

How is such a statement helpful in a tagging discussion? It can be said about 
everything, I don’t tag it because I can go there to find out. If you are not 
interested in tagging details, don’t engage in the discussion about these 
things.


What I said is that I believe it is more important to tag whether the 
flow of water can be stopped or not than tagging specifically how it can 
be stopped or regulated.


You are misinterpreting what I wrote: I didn't state that such features 
shouldn't be tagged, just that I don't personally find it useful. I also 
provided an example of some people who might actually find it useful.


I do not like the aggressiveness in this comment of yours; I feel that 
prioritizing things is an important aspect when deciding what to do and 
discouraging people from intervening because they don't feel every 
single detail should be tagged is not a positive way to do this.


As an example: I might propose to tag the position of every single brick 
of every single building. This might be useful, but if someone 
intervenes by saying that adding the position of the buildings should be 
more important than specifying the position of the bricks I should not 
get mad at them. Their input is useful and will highlight the lack of 
buildings in the map; some people will prefer having all the buildings 
mapped even if the single bricks are not mapped.


I will not tell them their opinion is useless because they're not open 
to tagging every single detail that exists.



If I reflect on what I wrote "I can just go to the fountain and observe 
what I find." I then realize that the current tagging situation is even 
much less detailed than this. Prevalently it is currently (at least in 
this topic): here is drinking water, you can go there and see how it is 
provided to you. I barely can know there's a fountain there because of 
the overly fragmented tagging scheme.


Please let's not be ridiculous by assuming we have infinite resources 
and that whatever gets approved here will actually become a widespread 
and useful tag.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 28/10/22 07:43, Warin wrote:

I think the actuator is more important than the 'tap'/'valve' and 
would give more information than 'tap=yes/no'. 


Actuator definitely provides more information and implicitly defines 
tap=yes.


This said, I don't know whether it's more important. While I could be 
interested in whether the flow of a fountain might be stopped or not, 
I'm not really interested in how I'd have to do that: I can just go to 
the fountain and observe what I find.


I guess tagging the actuator may be useful for people with physical 
disabilities, who might be searching for a fountain that is easy to use 
for them, thus either a fountain without a tap or a fountain with an 
actuator that can be used easily.



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I have changed my proposal.

Rather than using model=* I now propose to use fountain:design=*


Please provide your opinion in the wiki talk page or here.

I will let at least two weeks pass from today before initiating a vote.

On 11/10/22 15:17, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:

Use model=* to describe fountains

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal 



Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 14/10/22 11:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, I see the wall behind the trough with the water spout as part of 
the fountain, it is a rock carved decorated wall. Or do you believe it 
is there just for coincidence?


I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we 
agree on that.


This fountain has the wall and thus is decorative and is amenity=fountain.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


This other fountain doesn't have such wall, thus it is not decorative 
and it cannot be tagged as amenity=fountain (assuming we disregard the 
recreational utility mentioned in the wiki).


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Water_fountain_with_water_basin_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


The shape and use of these two fountains looks the same to me.

Why would you tag them as different features?

I'm not necessarily saying they need to be tagged as amenity=fountain, 
but I would expect their main tagging to be the same and maybe differ in 
some secondary parameter.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a tap? 
if it isn’t a tap it will not help if it had one.


I'm not sure about anything anymore...

Maybe it is not a fountain, the problem is that I have no idea how that 
could be tagged with the current tagging scheme.


It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since 
it is not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a 
spring anyway.



If this is still about laundry sinks, I suggest to not see them as fountains.
No, this is not for laundry; the specific use of this fountain is not 
exactly clear to me but I guess mostly to provide water for cleaning 
houses and watering plants.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 12/10/22 10:32, Warin wrote:
I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is 
the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys 
.. etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of 
water simply by its shape. 
No, it does not contain any significant level of water; but I don't 
exclude a pipe can be added to increase the water level.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

it is a historic fountain that IMHO clearly is decorative


In my opinion the fountain is neither historic nor decorative.

It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that 
could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's 
just an old fountain.


I don't think it is decorative, it's a fountain in a small village which 
was probably used to refresh people, get water for cleaning and watering 
plants. Probably houses around didn't have running water until recently 
and this is what they used.



Probably the division between decorative and utility fountains is futile 
since it can be interpreted in many different ways. We might simply fall 
back to amenity=fountain when no better definition is available. The 
general understanding, as far as I understood by reading your replies, 
is that amenity=fountain refers only to decorative fountains. However, 
the wiki clearly states that amenity=fountain refers to any fountain 
that has some kind of "recreational" utility.


A fountain with cultural, decorational or historical significance or 
which serves a *recreational* purpose.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 12/10/22 10:36, Warin wrote:


Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some 
misunderstandings and ease migration? 


I was thinking about fountain:design since style is a generic attribute 
that might be interpreted in many different ways.


What do you mean by fountain:function? Do you mean tagging 
fountain:function=drinking? Then what would you tag fountain=* with?



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote:
I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a 
solution first before even thinking of depreciation. 


I do agree and appreciate this approach. A solution for tagging 
man_made=drinking_fountain already exists, that is fountain=bubbler.


I see no problem in deprecating that since a good and valid solution 
that does not present the same amount of problems does already exist, I 
believe this is well explained in the deprecation proposal.



I am trying to propose some solutions, but I'm rather inexperienced at 
doing that and thus I'm trying to follow advice of people who know more 
than me.


I have made a proposal which clearly has some problems and I will try to 
fix those problems as soon as I get time to do so.



OT: to all the threads I left unreplied up to now, sorry guys I'll get 
back to you as soon as I can.




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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 15:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

but in general I support this idea, just key seems wrong.


If you can advise better keys, please do that in the wiki discussion 
page so that good ideas are documented there and not lost in the mailing 
list.


It might be good to have such ideas if this proposal turns out not to be 
good enough.



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 15:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

what happens when Rome start using new model of fountain in a given style?


You would tag that as a new model.

Style has many problems, because you could very well tag baroque 
fountains as a style or baroque fountains made by this particular artist 
between 1924 and 1926 as a style.


Model is easier to define, and as far as I've seen if they develop a new 
model of fountains, those have a new style.




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

[Tagging] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Use model=* to describe fountains

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal

Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
or you simply don’t put this detail. 


This is problematic, since if you only tag amenity=fountain it will fall 
back to a decorative fountain since amenity=fountain appears to be 
defined in that way.


I'll repeat the problems with the current tagging scheme that I already 
listed elsewhere.


If I have a fountain that is not decorative, doesn't have a tap and 
doesn't provide drinking water, this fountain cannot be tagged.


Because no main key applies to it.

- Not a decorative fountain, thus not an amenity=fountain

- Doesn't provide drinking water, thus not an amenity=drinking_water

- Does not have a tap, thus not a man_made=water_tap


How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?

The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and 
definitely is not a decorative fountain.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


Using amenity=fountain, fountain=utility will allow tagging this fountain.

As I said, the alternative would be to introduce another main tag under 
which to tag these features, but that was harshly criticized.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
this is not a redefinition, it is already like this. 
man_made=water_tap describes a water tap.


man_made=water_tap is de facto being used to describe larger structures 
that contain a water tap. This wouldn't be a problem if there was a way 
to actually describe those features.



a feature for washing clothes for me is not a "fountain", it is a 
lavoir, a laundry sink, or something similar.
Some are indistinguishable from drinking fountains, some have drinking 
water and can be used to wash clothes as well.



I do not understand what "fountains to clean people" are, could you 
give an example?

I had a walk the other day, you may look at these two pictures I took.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_with_water_basin_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


the word "style", if used in opposition to "type", suggests something 
like "fashion" to me, or art/architectural epoche style (e.g. art 
deco, modern, post-modern, renaissance, barocco, etc.)

Agreed, style is not a good name for such key.



Introduction of the key tap=yes, used to describe if the flow of a
fountain can be controlled by the user.

is already introduced
Not really, tap=yes has 347 uses and it's used only regionally in 
Dominican Republic to tag the presence of taps in a building.


- It is not used to mark the presence of a tap in a fountain

- It is not approved

- It is not documented on the wiki.

Refer here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065939.html



it is already introduced, 953 instances as of now, but actually it may 
create problems for example in the case of a "decorative drinking 
fountain", and because "decorative" is not clearly defined. Maybe this 
situation could be improved.
Sure, I meant documenting it in the wiki and finding solutions for these 
edge cases. If my idea was already a perfect full blown proposal I would 
have published the proposal already.




yet another generic type, even more generic then "drinking"?
fountain=drinking is not generic enough, since there are types of non 
decorative fountains that cannot be tagged in any way.


Refer here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065936.html



my suggestion would be to have other generic values, but slightly more 
specific than "utility", to cover the cases that are not yet covered 
by the documented values.
I do agree, and that is also my objective; but I do like the idea of 
having a very generic value you can fall back to when no other value 
applies.



this alternative tagging is just a temporary hickup which will wash 
out automatically I guess, but we could try to speed it up.

Sure, but I see no reason for showing it on the wiki.


On the other hand, people using the same tag for (also only slightly) 
different things, is a huge problem and leads to ambiguity and cannot 
be solved automatically, all instances have to looked at again
I understand the problem, but I do not wish to start looking at all 
possible existing fountain types in the world to make an exhaustive 
list. Especially when people here start fighting about the specific name 
of a fountain meant for drinking.



no it cannot. There are many fountains made of stone, but not all them 
are instances of "stone block".
The value is ambiguous: it is described as any fountain that consists 
mostly of a stone block. It may be a decorative fountain or a drinking 
fountain or another type of fountain.



As you said:

using the same tag for (also only slightly) different things, is a 
huge problem


Regarding the proposal: I would not make a big proposal package which 
aims at changing all the things you mention, rather I would suggest to 
make distinct proposals for each of these changes.
I think I will follow your advice. I'm currently thinking of two 
separate proposals: one for introducing the fountains model (or whatever 
new key we decide to introduce) and another one to introduce tap=* as a 
way to describe the presence of a tap in a fountain. (Please, discuss 
about these things in the thread wherever it is and not here)



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has
multiple models?

absolutely yes.


Would this be a problem at the current state of things?

Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing nasone 
from the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.


Should we introduce another key for the style and then tag the specific 
model of the fountain style as new_key=nasone, new_key:model=model_1960?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that 
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values 
to describe the known cases 
We would need to approve that certain keys are moved from fountain=* to 
model=* and that model=* should be documented in the amenity=fountain 
and fountain=* wiki pages.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 10/10/22 10:45, Marc_marc wrote:
it's vague and overlap drinking at least 


Sorry, I didn't notice this and thus didn't reply to you before.

I want this to be a more generic value than drinking: thus if you're 
unsure whether a fountain is a drinking fountain you can tag it as utility.


If you want to tag a fountain, which is not decorative and for which no 
specific value exists you can tag it as utility. In this way I make sure 
that any fountain can be tagged.


For example, there is currently no value available for fountains whose 
intended use is washing your hands. Rather than introducing all 
plausible values, I'd rather introduce a generic one and then see if the 
need for specific ones develops.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't 
want to get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would 
like to simply discuss the need of such a key without defining the 
actual name.


If people agree that such key is required I will then try to find, 
together with you, an appropriate name for such key.


Scouring the wiki I found a key that might be perfect for this: model=* 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:model


It has over 32,000 uses and it is used to define the model of several 
different features.


I will prepare a proposal for this now; since this key is already 
affirmed and approved we just need to approve that it should be used for 
fountains as well.


Some use the main_feature:model namespace, but in this case it shouldn't 
be required since we are describing the model of the primary feature 
(the fountain). Counting those tags as well the count of uses is over 
43,000.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I do not like very much at all the key 
"new_key_describing_fountain_style" — if that is really a literal key 
you (Davidoskky) are proposing here. If it is a place-holder for what 
we eventually decide upon FOR the semantics of that key, then OK, I'm 
nodding my head and continue to listen / read. 


Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't want 
to get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would like to 
simply discuss the need of such a key without defining the actual name.


If people agree that such key is required I will then try to find, 
together with you, an appropriate name for such key.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Don't think it really needs anything more than you said earlier:

amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative / utility / drinking

should cover it?


No, this is not enough to cover the features that are currently tagged, 
thus this would be a regression.


Currently you can tag nasone, toret, roman_wolf and wallace which are 
specific models/styles of drinking fountains. For example, nasone is a 
particular type of fountain present in Rome; all fountains of this type 
look the same. Deleting information about them being a nasone and simply 
tagging them as fountain=drinking would mean losing information; this 
means that if you're in Rome and you check for the presence of drinking 
fountains you cannot discern which ones are a nasone and which ones are 
not. Having lived in Rome I can tell you that this is important 
information and that people actually do search for this kind of things 
(as long as it's easy enough).


These should be, in my opinion, fountain=drinking, 
new_key_describing_fountain_style=nasone.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Do you know if a tag already exist to describe the presence   of a 
tap in a building ?


a tap like the one used in man_made=water_tap ?


I'm not exactly sure what it is describing, I should contact the people 
who added those tags...


I assume in the case of fuel stations it means there is water available, 
maybe for cleaning a car or something like this.


In the case of other buildings they tag it together with 
drinking_water=yes, so I guess in this case it means there are sinks or 
something like that in the building.



I was think about a proposal about water_tap 
If you wish, you can contact me privately and we can discuss on the 
points I'm unsure about the proposal I'm writing and find better 
solutions together.


I feel that writing on this mailing list is not such a good way to find 
good solutions to problems, while it appears a wonderful place to find 
problems.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 10/10/22 18:25, Marc_marc wrote:


of course, I share your opinion since it breaks the tag chain system :
a sub-tag rafines the "upper" tag which must therefore be present.

it is the expression that at least one tag is missing to describe
the common characteristic between these amenity=fountain and these 
amenity=driking_water


Do you have any alternative idea on how to deal with this?

I already proposed the two ideas I got: either having amenity=fountain 
also describe non decorative fountains and thus deprecate fountain=* as 
subtag of amenity=drinking_water or introducing a new key for all those 
values of fountain=* that are not decorative fountains, so that 
fountain=* doesn't have to be a subtag of amenity=drinking_water.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

(BTW, I want to document existing tagging here and tap=yes has 347 
uses while

man_made=water_tap 23 711 uses - though if someone wants to make proposal
they are welcome, tagging scheme is quite rotten here)


I have been looking at the current uses of tap=* and water_tap=* as I'm 
planning to make a proposal for tap=*.


tap=* and water_tap=* are currently being used to tag the presence of a 
water tap in a building.


tap=* is used in Dominican Republic and the values used are "yes", "no" 
or the number of water taps in the building.


water_tap=* is used in Venezuela to indicate if a fuel station has a 
water tap available.



Writing a proposal for tap=* becomes even more difficult if I have to 
keep these uses in mind.


Do you know if a tag already exist to describe the presence of a tap in 
a building? I think tap=* is appropriate, but maybe something else is 
already available.



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

It is true that OpenStreetMap allows for any tag you like, but this 
isn’t meant to encourage you to devalue established tags by using them 
differently from how they are typically used. What would be the 
benefit you expect from such retagging? 


This is not something I am suggesting; this is the current state of things.

fountain=drinking is currently a subtag of amenity=fountain and it is 
documented in the wiki. fountain=* is unfortunately also a subtag of 
amenity=drinking_water, I just noticed this and I think that this makes 
it even more confusing.


Anyway, I have proposed another solution: the introduction of a new key 
to cover all these features; a proposal for it was made but it was 
withdrawn due to fierce criticism, among which was yours since you 
disliked the fact that it deprecated some tags you're using.



I do see the problems in both approaches; but also having fountain=* as 
subtag of amenity=drinking_water does not look like a good solution to 
me. Moreover, what is the point of having values of fountain=* that do 
not apply to the amenity=fountain main key?


For example, this approach does not allow tagging fountains which are 
not decorative and that do not provide drinking water.


You can tag them as man_made=water_tap if they have a tap, if a tap is 
not present these cannot be tagged according to this scheme, because:


- No tap, thus no man_made=water_tap

- Not a decorative fountain, thus no amenity=fountain

- No drinking water, thus no amenity=drinking_water


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

In Australia it would be unusual to find a drinking fountain without a 
tap to stop the flow when a person is not drinking. I think it could 
be illegal such is the scarcity of water. 
Thus, I believe that a world wide default should be avoided in favour of 
local ones or enforcing explicit tagging.


tap=yes as default would not work in Italy and tap=no as default would 
not work in Australia.



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower. 
If around the pipe on which the tap is present is fitted a fountain .. 
then it becomes a fountain.


Nit picking: Oxygen is a gas .. under 'normal' conditions. 

Better to use the term fluid rather than liquid.


I would expect the following to have taps are part of their 
construction - as a OSM default - shower, bottle filler, drinking 
fountain. If there is no tap .. then tap=no .. or better 
flow=continuous. Why is flow=continuous better .. it says what it is. 

Why would tap=yes be a good default?

I have run an overpass query to find all tagged types of drinking 
fountains 
("fountain"~"^(bubbler|drinking|nasone|drinking_fountain|toret|roman_wolf|wallace)$").


The total number of tagged items is 1572, 964 of which are in Italy (732 
of which in Rome!!). In Italy this kind of fountains generally does  not 
have a tap.


Thus, the majority of fountains currently tagged in osm do not have a 
tap; at this point it would be more sensible to have tap=no as a default.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

water_tap=yes/no already exist and I see no value to change
from water_tap=* to tap=* 


I cannot find water_tap=* on the wiki, anyway taginfo shows 166 elements 
tagged as water_tap=* and 470 tagged as tap=*.




I also find that you spread yourself too thinly by talking about
ideas that you could do (but which are not done in this RFC) 
I'm asking for comments about those ideas; I'm not proposing to change 
them without previously discussing about it.


If I make a proposal it will be solely on the changes I listed in the 
Proposed summary section.



I would tend to think of one or 2 simple proposals : 
Yes, I could split this into different proposals. I think that starting 
with tap=* will be the easiest.


Then I could make one to describe the style of the fountains and another 
one to add the generic values decorative and utility.



for=drinking/bottle/dog/... to describe how it can be used 
I'm quite unsure about this idea... a fountain that spouts water 
downwards can be used to fill bottles, to drink and to let dogs (and 
other animals?) drink.



at least, a namespace isn't needed (as we don't use shop:name on a 
shop=* nor shop:opening_hours on a shop=*) 

Would simply style work?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

question: is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes?


Just chiming in since I'm not really interested in this proposal and I 
will not vote.


It makes more sense to ask whether it is widespread in the EU not to 
accept certain types of notes rather than if it is legal.


If it is a widespread custom, it may be useful to tag it.

If it's only a couple shops in Europe that refuse to accept certain 
notes, then tagging this information in Europe would be useless...



Alright, sorry; I'm out.


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

[Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Hello,

in this message 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065805.html 
I proposed two different ways to go about the inability to well describe 
features that provide water through pipes.


The first idea proposed was focusing on using the subtag fountain=* and 
defining some sensible values that could easily be extended.


The second idea proposed was the creation of a new tag that would 
include all non-decorative fountains.


I also proposed the deprecation of man_made=water_tap.


I have observed the discussion and changed my mind, I do not believe 
anymore that man_made=water_tap should be deprecated but rather 
redefined to only describe the tap of a fountain and not the whole 
fountain. Please don't discuss about this specific point here, I'm just 
describing the background information.


It appears to me that people in this mailing list prefer my first idea, 
as I also do. It doesn't create a new tag and forces some order in the 
fountain=* tag by solving the problems with overlapping tags.


The second idea was brought forward and a proposal about it was made, 
which was quickly withdrawn since there was strong opposition and many 
affirmed tags were being changed or deprecated.



I have written this as a RFC, but after a few comments I do actually 
want to make a proposal. I have never made one, so I would appreciate 
some advice on how to go about doing it.



*Proposal summary*

amenity=fountain describes both decorative fountains and utility 
fountains, such as drinking fountains, small fountains for washing 
clothes, fountains to clean people or provide water to animals; this 
would not include large facilities with one single scope in mind: for 
example a building where people go to wash clothes would not fall under 
this tag.


Introduction of the key fountain:style=* that accepts as values all the 
ones currently listed in the wiki as "Specific types of drinking water 
fountains"; translation of the definition of all those fountains to 
fountain=drinking, fountain:style=*.


Introduction of the key tap=yes, used to describe if the flow of a 
fountain can be controlled by the user.


Introduction of the generic value fountain=decorative, that ensures the 
fountain is decorative.


Introduction of the generic value fountain=utility, that describes the 
fountain as non-decorative.


Deprecation of fountain=drinking_fountain in favour of fountain=drinking.


The idea is that fountains not covered by the current values can still 
be tagged as either decorative or utility even if a specific tag does 
not exist.


This proposal does not change the man_made=water_tap tag, but keep in 
mind that a redefinition of that tag would greatly improve this proposal.


The specific names of the values I proposed can be changed, but please 
don't start a world war between British and Australian English.



*RFC*

I'm unsure fountain:style is the best name for the key to describe those 
fountains; if you have a better name in mind, please propose that.



You can propose other values for fountain=* but I guess those will come 
with time anyway, since the idea is to make this easily extensible.



I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block since 
it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone. This tag impedes 
tagging the fountain with a specific value in order to describe its 
material.



I'm unsure whether fountain=bottle_refill should be kept.

In the wiki it is decribed by this image: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fairmont_Sonoma_Mission_Inn_August_2019_-_Sarah_Stierch_09.jpg


The water does not come through pipes, but from a nearby water 
container. I'd rather tag it as its own amenity.


This said, this is not the main point; please discuss the main points of 
my proposal and let me know if I can publish this on the wiki.



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

Re: [Tagging] relevance of water taps as opposed to fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Similarly the tap that is part of a drinking fountain cannot represent the 
whole fountain, hence it shouldn’t be in “competition” with the fountain tag, 
it could be added as a property like tap=* but adding it as man_made to the 
amenity (which is supposed to represent the whole feature) would just be a 
misrepresentation and misleading.


+1 from the wiki page for example I would not tag these two as water_tap:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_tap_in_Frejus.jpg

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg


While I would tag this one as a water_tap:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bristol_(UK),_Brunel%27s_ss_Great_Britain_--_2013_--_1606.jpg


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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I started this thread to confirm/reject listing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as
man_made=water_tap
fountain=bubbler
drinking_water=yes
amenity=drinking_water



replace man_made=water_tap with tap=yes and I subscribe. Also remove 
the redundant drinking_water=yes, it is implied by amenity=drinking_water


I like this, but I'd remove amenity=drinking_water rather than 
drinking_water=yes, because you _should_ add the tag amenity=fountain.


+1 for tap=yes.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I'll be voting no. 

Me too, I feel there are way too many changes.

I'd rather better define the values of fountain=*.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

On 08/10/22 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


this is the result of focusing what apparently most people are interested in 
(drinking water), regardless of the physical details

I think this is good and I have no intention of changing this thing in fact.


That’s why we decided some years ago to record additional detail about the 
structure in the fountain tag.
I wish to add more sense to how these structures are described. The 
current tagging scheme has a lot of problems with overlapping tags.



drinking_fountain (which is somehow a duplicate of fountain=drinking ...)
man_made=drinking_fountain is an exact duplicate of fountain=bubbler; 
there is no reason for having two equivalent tags at all.

All of these can already be described, although there could (should IMHO) be 
more properties for the details, for example:
Agreed, what I'm most interested in, however, is making sense of the 
main tags used; not the specific descriptive values.



I give precedence to fountains over taps, for a drinking fountain you could add 
tap=yes or no, in case of a bigger fountain you would tag the tap as its own 
object.
If you use man_made=water_tap both to describe single taps of a large 
fountain and the fountain as a whole, then the tag has a double meaning 
and it's unclear what it is describing when you see it on the map.

I believe our tagging scheme for drinking water is following general interest 
here.
Yes, the main interest is knowing where to find drinking water, that 
works very well.

What doesn't work is the description of what is delivering the water.
The example from Enno cannot be described unequivocally in a single way, 
it can be described in many different ways each missing out on something.


I'm not saying that this tagging scheme has to become the norm for 
tagging drinking water, I'm saying that since the option is there to tag 
drinking water places in more detail, then this scheme should make sense 
and account for all (at least most) cases in a simple and understandable 
way.


These features are not so widespread; thus the change or deprecation of 
one of them shouldn't be a big problem.
You must also realize that this scheme is probably generating a lot of 
mistags, since I imagine a lot of people are tagging drinking fountains 
as amenity=fountain (that is what I would do and what would appear to me 
as most sensible before reading 10 different wiki pages).


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Apparently they are not decorative enough for some people and should 
be tagged amenity=drinking_water. However, the same type of fountain 
could have a sign saying the water is not potable


Thank you for the examples, this is what I was trying to address.


yes, if the water is drinkable, I would go with 
amenity=drinking_water, if it isn’t, maybe watering_place with 
drinking_water=no? Or if animals can’t drink it either, 
amenity=fountain seems ok.
It feels strange to me that the same exact structure might belong to 
three different primary tags according to whether the water provided is 
potable or not or if animals can use it or not.


Moreover, that same thing might have a tap, thus in that case you may 
wish to tag it in even more ways; you may decide to tag it as a tap or 
as a watering place or as a fountain.


Either tagging will not provide complete information about the object, 
but only partial according to which one you picked.




it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
isn’t in the other.
If I have two objects that look exactly the same, one providing drinking 
water and the other providing non potable water; I would expect them to 
be tagged through the same primary tag, with a secondary one describing 
whether the water is potable or not. As it is currently done for 
amenity=fountain and man_made=water_tap.



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

[Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I wish to broadly discuss the definition of fountains and similar 
objects that have the objective of delivering water (drinkable or not).


Everything I wish to discuss in this thread is about man made 
constructions that transport water through pipes, I will thus not talk 
about wells and such things.


This is not a proposal, since I first wish to identify the main problems 
with what I’m going to suggest.


The final objective is the deprecation of man_made=water_tap in order to 
unify all these features under the same tag.




 Background

The tags pertaining to this category are quite a disorganized mess with 
a lot of overlaps.


The main tag used to indicate a place where drinking water is available 
is amenity=drinking_water. This is a very affirmed tag and works very 
well, because it provides indications as to where it is possible to find 
water for drinking. It is thus immediately useful to the users of the 
map and it doesn’t require mappers to go through 5 different tags to 
indicate that.


The second most used tag in this category amenity=fountain, this 
describes a man made object that provides a flow of water. The flow of 
water can be continuous or it can be stopped by a person. The fountain 
can be decorative or it may provide some service (such as providing 
drinking water). It is unclear whether the majority of the tagged 
features are decorative fountains or not, the wiki appears to suggest so 
but in many countries there is no distinction among the word for a 
decorative fountain and a service one.


The third relevant tag is man_made=water_tap; this indicates any man 
made construction that provides water (drinkable or not) through a tap, 
thus the flow of the water can be started and stopped by a person.


The last relevant tag is man_made=drinking_fountain, this tag has very 
few usages and a thread about its deprecation has already been started, 
thus I will not discuss about it in detail.




Popularity of these tags:

1.

   amenity=drinking_water: 266,535

2.

   amenity=fountain: 151,218

3.

   man_made=water_tap: 23,678

4.

   man_made=drinking_fountain: 656



 Problems with the current tagging scheme

The current tagging scheme works very well to tag places where people 
can find water to drink. This is great since this information is very 
useful to map users.


However, it often fails at describing how the water is delivered or what 
is delivering it. amenity=drinking_water is a great generic tag that 
works perfectly for this, however more specialized tags should allow to 
distinguish different features that are delivering the water.


This is the objective of man_made=water_tap and amenity=fountain. These 
provide a description of the object that delivers the water. Moreover, 
these tags can be used to describe both systems that deliver drinking 
water or systems that deliver non potable water. This is done mainly by 
adding the secondary tag drinking_water=*, even though in many cases 
man_made=water_tap coexists with amenity=drinking_water.




amenity=fountain has a subtag fountain=* used to describe the type of 
fountain. This subtag is not widely used, but it contains several 
different values:


 *

   splash_pad: 1458

 *

   decorative: 950

 *

   nozzle: 885

 *

   bubbler: 319

 *

   drinking: 266

Among other values describing the specific name of the type of fountains 
(nasone fountains for example are a style of fountains used to provide 
drinking water in Rome).


Thus, currently the tag amenity=fountain is used both to describe 
decorative fountains and to describe fountains that provide drinking 
water or simple generic nozzles.


The tag fountain=* is not well defined since it can describe both the 
use of the fountain (fountain=drinking) and the particular style of the 
fountain (fountain=nasone).




The biggest issue with this is the overlap of the two tags 
amenity=fountain and man_made=water_tap. If amenity=fountain was used to 
only describe large decorative fountains, which cannot supposedly be 
switched off by a common person this wouldn’t be a problem. However, 
since this feature can represent nozzles and drinking fountains, some of 
the fountains here represented can have a water tap.


Thus the same feature might be tagged either as man_made=water_tap or 
amenity=fountain. The tag amenity=fountain has no way to specify that 
the water flow can be started or stopped through a tap.


Out of these two tags, the most problematic appears to be 
man_made=water_tap, since it describes any generic object that has a 
tap. That could be anything, thus this tag doesn’t really provide 
insightful information about what it is describing, it just provides one 
of its properties.



 How could this be solved?

I believe that the best course of action is the deprecation of 
man_made=water_tap. This tag is redundant and not descriptive.


However, the problem with its deprecation is finding a valid alternative 
to it. It would make sense to transform 

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Thank you, I will close this long thread.

It makes no sense to keep talking about all these things here when the 
purpose was just the deprecation of man_made=drinking_fountain.


I'll open a new thread in which I'll try to write my ideas about all 
this in more detail in order to have a more in depth discussion about it.



About the deprecation of man_made=drinking_fountain: I'm in favour and I 
will vote to deprecate it.


I see no negative sides to the deprecation and just positive ones.

I feel that this whole discussion about british english is just 
derailing from the objective of identifying a proper scheme.



And so (as you, Davidoskky are a "primary recipient" I had in mind as I wrote 
it), I explicitly please refer you here [1]:

(and thank you, and thanks to all for continuing to read this almost-tedious 
thread).  I'm glad we do this, sometimes tiring and sometimes irritating it can 
be, but it is very much worth it.

Let's remember:  there is a LOT going on in refining / improving / extending 
tagging.  It can be hard work.



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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
if technically possible.



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


I also agree with this, I don't think it would be appropriate to 
substitute amenity=drinking_water at the moment, since it is a working 
tag and it is quite affirmed. No reason to deprecate it in favour of 
some new and rather unknown tags.


If nothing else, I feel that amenity=drinking_water is currently the 
best working tag among all the ones discussed.



What I'd like is a stabilization and clear definition of all the other 
tags so that they could actually get in use.


If these other tags get adopted by the community, then the deprecation 
of amenity=drinking_water might be discussed, but this is definitely not 
the right moment.


Overall, I'd like to have a discussion about how to regularize 
amenity=fountain, man_made=water_tap and man_made=drinking_fountain in 
order to remove all this overlap among those tags and providing a more 
sensible and less confusing tagging scheme.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

everybody can write everything in the wiki, but man_made=drinking_fountain is a 
low usage tag and drinking_fountain=yes is virtually unused (10 times 
globally), whoever wrote this didn’t research actual usage. Where is it written?


It is written here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain I 
did not want to delete the line myself, but I feel it would be sensible.



___
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

[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

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

in my experience, small steps are more likely to succeed and are a 
good thing, especially when they go in a consistent long-term direction



I agree with Marc, man_made=drinking_fountain appears to be completely 
useless and redundant.


I see no reason against deprecating it.

If other things to improve the fountains situation can be done that 
would be great, but at least this is a start.



Do feel it should eventually be deleted, but as part of sorting out 
issues with using "fountain" and "drinking fountain" sharing part of 
the same tag. 


I don't see why drinking fountains shouldn't be a value of fountain=* if 
the key fountain exists it makes no sense to put fountains under man_made.


Drinking fountains are a particular typology of fountains.



What was wrong with calling a drinking fountain a drinking fountain?
Nothing wrong, a bubbler is a particular type of drinking fountain, one 
in which the jet of water is upwards.


You can use fountain=drinking for all the others.


We are not talking about a big number of elements, thus changes should 
not be too problematic, I have generally seen most drinking fountains 
tagged as amenity=drinking_water which is a rather unspecific tag that 
could easily be substituted by drinking_water=yes.


 * drinking_water=yes
   : 112,290
 * amenity=drinking_water
   :
   266,403 elements
 * man_made=drinking_fountain
   :
   650 elements
 * fountain=bubbler
   : 314
   elements
 * fountain=drinking
   : 265
   elements

As you can see, amenity=drinking_water is currently the most common way 
to tag this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

With replacement of man_made=water_tap where applicable  > which is 
likely for all cases or almost all cases.


and for other amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes ?


I agree, man_made=drinking_fountain has no reason to exist.


*Bubbler with tap
*

 * amenity=fountain
 * fountain=bubbler
 * drinking_water=yes
 * man_made=water_tap

*Drinking fountain with downward jet without tap*

 * amenity=fountain
 * fountain=drinking
 * drinking_water=yes

Moreover, I feel that drinking_water=yes is redundant in this case; it 
could be advised that fountain=drinking and fountain=bubbler include 
drinking_water=yes thus making it optional in this case.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I wouldn't call this a "drinking fountain," since I understand that term to 
mean the water flows upwards
  COULD drink from it, if I were to cup my hands and bring them to my lips, 
even as that is inefficient, if I were really thirsty, I could do it.
In my country, and most countries I visited, fountains providing 
drinking water with the specific purpose of letting people drink have a 
downward flow.


Fountains with an upward flow are generally found within buildings and 
rarely in the streets in my experience.


I am an avid user of fountains to drink in the streets and I definitely 
do use (and prefer) the ones with a downward flow.



I do agree these two typologies of fountains are different and maybe it 
would make sense to differentiate them in the tagging (as it is being 
done now: drinking vs bubbler).


I still feel that fountains with a downward flow that are placed there 
specifically to provide drinking water to people should be called 
drinking fountains or something similar.


I do not include in this definition fountains which provide drinking 
water, but whose supposed main scope is providing water for washing 
clothes, irrigation or such things.



For example, take a look at this fountain, the whole purpose is to drink 
from it. It does provide the option of having an upward stream, but by 
default the water is flowing down.


https://duomo24.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17356812296_2f709a02f1_b-640x871.jpg


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

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I'll add to this list all those taps that can be activated without a direct 
manipulation of an object, such as passing your hand in front of a light ray 
which causes the water to start flowing.

The objects being manipulated in this case are photons.

Maybe you are being needlessly pedantic or "splitting hairs" (getting lost in the 
minutiae of details), I'm not sure.  But I think asserting "if there is a valve (and there are 
many sorts of valves), it's a tap" is fairly clear.


I think your definition is perfectly good. I was just pointing out that 
other kinds of devices using valves exist that don't always require 
manipulation of any object.



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

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

This is why I said "if it's got a user-friendly valve," like if you press a button (and a stream shoots up to 
your lips to drink), wiggle a stem so water falls down (on your hands to wash), step on a lever (and the flow 
begins)...yeah, these things have a knob / lever / valve (maybe it rotates, maybe it needs to be "pressed"):  
these are water_taps.  You might wash your hands, you might flow gently upwards in an arc for your lips, you might 
cause a light flow to drip or flow downward.  The "valve" (of many sorts), makes it a "tap."


I'll add to this list all those taps that can be activated without a 
direct manipulation of an object, such as passing your hand in front of 
a light ray which causes the water to start flowing.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mobile apps

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Hi,

I have added a few comments in the wiki.


Davide

On 29/09/22 10:18, Martin Fischer wrote:

Hey everybody,

I just drafted a proposal to formalize app:* which is currently used 
in Sweden to link Android & iOS apps of pharmacies.
My proposal also addresses the inconsistency between the currently in 
use app:apple, app:google, payment:app:android and payment:app:ios.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Mobile_apps

Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.

Best,
Martin

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


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