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

[Warin]

On 15/11/22 12:16, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:00:42 +0100, Davidoskky via 
Tagging  wrote:

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

You mean the one that was cancelled because it was a duplicate of already 
existing
and hugely 
popularhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=drinking_water  ?


Fundamental differences:

water supply outlet may not be drinkable.

A decorative fountain is not a water supply outlet.

Problem? - a well is not a water supply outlet.

There is a lot of thinking and work to be done if there is to be a good outcome.

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

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

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:00:42 +0100, Davidoskky via Tagging 
 wrote:
> Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet 
> proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet

You mean the one that was cancelled because it was a duplicate of already 
existing 
and hugely popular 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=drinking_water ?

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


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

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

[Warin]

On 13/11/22 03:00, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet 
proposal? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet



There is a lot more to be done for something like this. It needs to 
incorporate all "man made sources of water'  eg wells.



I am coming around to liking the value 'water_supply_outlet'. I have 
thought of 'water_source' but that could be misconstrued as the start of 
a river.



Decorative fountains do not fall under 'water_supply_outlet'. Another 
problem with 'water_supply_outlet' is the chosen symbol of a tap, I'd 
leave the symbol to later -see how it evolves.




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.



It would remove decorative fountains from amenity=fountain as this looks 
to be evolving into a mess of things that I would not call 'fountains'. 
It would leave amenity=fountain existing.




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...



? If hidden how do we know they are there ..  :) There are a few 
'hidden' tourist spots, sometimes I map them, sometimes I leave them off 
the map in particular where the venue is small and I don't want to see a 
crowd of people.




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.



Agreed it is a lot of work. But there is no other way of isolating 
decorative fountains from the other 'fountains' no mater what tag is 
agreed too.



___
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] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 21:36, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
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.



_



Technically it is a 'valve' that controls the water flow. The same kind 
of 'valve' is found in a water tap and in a shower.



I know that the tag of 'fountain' does not sit well with taps, at least 
not with me.


A new main tag of 'water_source=*' would remove the 'fountain' 
requirement and could use values such as water_well, shower, tap etc.



Decorative fountains could be moved to the tourism key as 
tourism=decorative_fountain.


This could conflict with tourism=art_work as some decorative fountains 
contain statures and other art works..


Possibly the sub key of artwork_type=* could be used under the tag 
tourism=decorative_fountain.


Ideally the two would be separate OSM entities as they are usually 
separate real world feature, one inside the other.




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

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

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

>I think you're joking about the lemonade, but here's the world's 
>largestfountain drink cup, now mapped in OSM:

Yes, I thought I was joking, but now you tell me it is possible!  LOL
Regards,Peter(PeterPan99) 

On Monday, 10 October 2022 at 20:25:53 BST, Minh Nguyen 
 wrote:  
 
 Vào lúc 03:08 2022-10-09, Peter Neale via Tagging đã viết:
> A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I 
> suppose) is coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; 
> petrol (gasoline), Oxygen, whatever...

I think you're joking about the lemonade, but here's the world's largest 
fountain drink cup, now mapped in OSM:

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/commercial/2017/8/largest-soft-drink-achieved-in-missouri-491025
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102693755

At least in American English, a "fountain drink" is one that comes from 
a soda fountain at a fast food restaurant. Speaking of soda fountains:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dr-pepper-soda-fountain-claire-daniels_n_58f0f9f7e4b0da2ff8603e89

And for the indoor mappers in the room:

https://www.insider.com/worlds-largest-chocolate-fountain-opens-at-lindt-shop-in-switzerland-2020-9

(What a world we live in!)

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




___
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

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 03:08 2022-10-09, Peter Neale via Tagging đã viết:
A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I 
suppose) is coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; 
petrol (gasoline), Oxygen, whatever...


I think you're joking about the lemonade, but here's the world's largest 
fountain drink cup, now mapped in OSM:


https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/commercial/2017/8/largest-soft-drink-achieved-in-missouri-491025
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102693755

At least in American English, a "fountain drink" is one that comes from 
a soda fountain at a fast food restaurant. Speaking of soda fountains:


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dr-pepper-soda-fountain-claire-daniels_n_58f0f9f7e4b0da2ff8603e89

And for the indoor mappers in the room:

https://www.insider.com/worlds-largest-chocolate-fountain-opens-at-lindt-shop-in-switzerland-2020-9

(What a world we live in!)

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




___
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

[Warin]

On 10/10/22 20:55, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:


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.




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.



Certainly when water restriction are declared such uncontrolled drinking 
fountains would be rendered useless, thus I don't think there are any 
here without taps.


With the most restrictive water restrictions decorative fountains are 
turned off, public water taps disabled but drinking fountains still usable.
___
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 - A broad look at fountains

[Warin]

On 9/10/22 21:08, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
No, it would not "turn them into taps", but it WOULD mean that a tap 
is present as part of the structure of the device.  
"amenity=drinking_water; tap=yes".



If something is fitted with a tap on its outlet .. it is then a tap.

If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower.

If a roof is later fitted with walls, a door or 2 and some windows is it 
then


building=roof, layer=1, walls=yes, entry_doors=yes, windows=yes ..

or simply building =yes?


The water is potable and you have to operate a tap to make it flow (so 
you may be OK to get a drink, but your dog might struggle and need 
assistance)


A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I 
suppose) is coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; 
petrol (gasoline), Oxygen, whatever...

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

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.




Regards,
Peter
(PeterPan99)

On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 18:43:39 BST, Peter Elderson 
 wrote:



I have the impression that slow running water points in Europe rapidly 
are fitted with a push button fot a limited amount of water or a 
limited tap time. Would that turn them into water taps?


Continuous flow of water features in Australia has long been 
problematic. Anything that is used in a not continuous manner has a tap 
fitted of some description for user operation. Public taps have even had 
their handles removed when things get rather dry.





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

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

[Warin]

On 9/10/22 21:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am So., 9. Okt. 2022 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen 
:


drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and
there
are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to
split
hairs. 




+1

I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking
fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by
default, but the default should be overridden when more is known
about
the water source.



a tag for drinking fountains should definitely imply drinking_water=yes,


Agreed. However there is a t least one case where a drinking fountain 
carries a sign that it is not suitable for drinking. Local drink form it 
anyway and don't seem to suffer from it. I'd tag it as 
drinking_water:legal=no and not tag drinking_water=* at all



but amenity=fountain should not imply any default value for 
"drinking_water", it should be checked and tagged explicitly. 
Expectations change around the globe and while it could be approached 
with national or regional defaults, I think it is better to be 
explicit (because a missing value is not clear, can be default or 
unknown, and potability of water is super important in this context).



I would take the safe view, drinking_water=no unless specifically tagged.






With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a
data
consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor
tap is
potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New
Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once
considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system
and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.



yes, water taps on cemeteries, as far as I recall, have been the 
initial reason for introducing man_made=water_tap (some people had 
started mapping amenity=drinking_water drinking_water=no ;-) )




I'd still take the same safe view, drinking_water=no unless specifically 
tagged.


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

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

[stevea]

Minh, thank you for your always-excellent research.  With this recent law 
(2017) about purple pipes in California and the 2015 Uniform Codes (Plumbing, 
Mechanical), I stand corrected as to my “there is no color-coding” (on pipes 
for reclaimed water in California).



On Oct 9, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Minh Nguyen  wrote:
> Vào lúc 23:50 2022-10-08, stevea đã viết:
>> On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:
>>> 
 Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. 
 or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more 
 CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this 
 stuff, just look and smell it!)
>>> 
>>> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.
>>> 
>>> Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
>>> some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are 
>>> connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be 
>>> drunk.
>>> 
>>> https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg
>> Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf 
>> course example).  While there is no "purple means don't drink" color-coding 
>> here, there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a 
>> publicly-accessible "water tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink 
>> (and again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
>> "non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the 
>> "international red circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human 
>> drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.
> 
> In California, any pipe or tap carrying recycled water is legally required to 
> be colored purple. [1] For water from other sources, "Do Not Drink", "No 
> Beber", or sign PS-013 [2] would be posted. Indoors, the Uniform Plumbing 
> Code, a national standard, specifies a particular shade of purple paint for 
> non-potable water pipes when the building also has potable water pipes. [3]
> 
> drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there are 
> non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split hairs. 
> I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking fountains would 
> both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by default, but the default 
> should be overridden when more is known about the water source.
> 
> With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data 
> consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is 
> potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New Orleans 
> that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once considered that 
> they might be hooked up to the municipal water system and maintained to the 
> standard of a public drinking fountain.
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
> [3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 9. Okt. 2022 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen <
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:

> drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there
> are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split
> hairs.



+1



> I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking
> fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by
> default, but the default should be overridden when more is known about
> the water source.
>


a tag for drinking fountains should definitely imply drinking_water=yes,
but amenity=fountain should not imply any default value for
"drinking_water", it should be checked and tagged explicitly. Expectations
change around the globe and while it could be approached with national or
regional defaults, I think it is better to be explicit (because a missing
value is not clear, can be default or unknown, and potability of water is
super important in this context).




>
> With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data
> consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is
> potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New
> Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once
> considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system
> and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.
>


yes, water taps on cemeteries, as far as I recall, have been the initial
reason for introducing man_made=water_tap (some people had started mapping
amenity=drinking_water drinking_water=no ;-) )

Cheers,
Martin




>
> [1]
>
> https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
> [3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18

00145 Roma

|I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I|

Italia
N41.851, E12.4824
8FHJVF5W+W5

tel1: +39 06.916508070
tel2: +49 30 868708638
mobil: +39 392 3114712
m...@koppenhoefer.com
http://www.koppenhoefer.com


Hinweis:
Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der
manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die
übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu
entschuldigen.

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmas...@koppenhoefer.com

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from
our systems.

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

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

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 23:50 2022-10-08, stevea đã viết:

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:


Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), and 
'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, just look 
and smell it!)


Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.

Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are connected 
to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be drunk.

https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg


Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf course example).  While there is no "purple means don't 
drink" color-coding here, there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a publicly-accessible "water 
tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink (and again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
"non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the "international red 
circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.


In California, any pipe or tap carrying recycled water is legally 
required to be colored purple. [1] For water from other sources, "Do Not 
Drink", "No Beber", or sign PS-013 [2] would be posted. Indoors, the 
Uniform Plumbing Code, a national standard, specifies a particular shade 
of purple paint for non-potable water pipes when the building also has 
potable water pipes. [3]


drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there 
are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split 
hairs. I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking 
fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by 
default, but the default should be overridden when more is known about 
the water source.


With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data 
consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is 
potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New 
Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once 
considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system 
and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.


[1] 
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg
[3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




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

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

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

No, it would not "turn them into taps", but it WOULD mean that a tap is present 
as part of the structure of the device.  "amenity=drinking_water; tap=yes".  
The water is potable and you have to operate a tap to make it flow (so you may 
be OK to get a drink, but your dog might struggle and need assistance)  
A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I suppose) is 
coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; petrol (gasoline), 
Oxygen, whatever...

Regards,Peter(PeterPan99)
On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 18:43:39 BST, Peter Elderson 
 wrote:  
 
 I have the impression that slow running water points in Europe rapidly are 
fitted with a push button fot a limited amount of water or a limited tap time. 
Would that turn them into water taps? 

Peter Elderson


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

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

[stevea]

On Oct 9, 2022, at 12:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> sent from a phone
>> On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:43, stevea  wrote:
>> Tags must capture these differences, and more.
> 
> and ideally they should do it in a way to reduce confusion

Yes, thank you; +1.  (I forgot to add “to reduce confusion,” you are quite 
right).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:43, stevea  wrote:
> 
> Tags must capture these differences, and more.


and ideally they should do it in a way to reduce confusion


Cheers Martin 

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

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

[Warin]

On 9/10/22 17:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:


> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking
water .. or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend
you boil' (more CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really
would not drink this stuff, just look and smell it!)

Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. 



Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in 
parks & some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that 
they are connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water 
should NOT be drunk.\



My local council is putting in storm water tanks for use as irrigation..

I think that tap was purple. The tap 'handle' was a 'secure fitting' .. 
you can buy the 'secure handle' at the local hardware store 
(bunnings)... a 4 way device to cope with 4 different 'secure fittings'.




https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg



I'll take a photo next time I'm out that way of the secure fitting and 
probably faded purple colouring.




Thanks

Graeme

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

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

[stevea]

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:
> 
> > Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
> > 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), 
> > and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, 
> > just look and smell it!)
> 
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. 
> 
> Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & 
> some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are 
> connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be drunk.
> 
> https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg

Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf course 
example).  While there is no "purple means don't drink" color-coding here, 
there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a 
publicly-accessible "water tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink (and 
again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says 
"non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the 
"international red circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human 
drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above.

We do seem to be getting closer to harmony here, but there are still a few 
sharps and flats among the notes we're all humming.  Good.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

What do they say about great minds, Steve? :-)

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:43, stevea  wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:31 PM, stevea  wrote:
> > Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example,
> a hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a
> hose and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a
> tap can also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source
> as drinking water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to
> make it drinkable — sources).
>
> I forgot to add to this:  On the other hand, a "tap" which looks exactly
> the same (identical turn-knob to control flow from "off" to "some" to
> "full") might NOT be "drinking water," because it is located at the local
> golf course, and has a sign next to it saying "Non-potable; using reclaimed
> water:  only for irrigation.  Not safe to drink."
>
> Tags must capture these differences, and more.
> ___
> 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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:

>
> > Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water ..
> or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more
> CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this
> stuff, just look and smell it!)
>
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.


Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks &
some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are
connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be
drunk.

https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg

Thanks

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

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

[stevea]

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:31 PM, stevea  wrote:
> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example, a 
> hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a hose 
> and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a tap can 
> also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source as 
> drinking water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to make 
> it drinkable — sources).

I forgot to add to this:  On the other hand, a "tap" which looks exactly the 
same (identical turn-knob to control flow from "off" to "some" to "full") might 
NOT be "drinking water," because it is located at the local golf course, and 
has a sign next to it saying "Non-potable; using reclaimed water:  only for 
irrigation.  Not safe to drink."

Tags must capture these differences, and more.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[stevea]

I love reading about all the German flavors here — and I'm not a bit surprised 
(as the German language loves to do this, and I love German for this!)

On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:20 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
>>> feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate 
>>> subtags.
>> 
>> it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
>> isn’t in the other.
> 
> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 
> 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), 
> and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this stuff, just 
> look and smell it!)

Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are.  For example, a 
hose_bib on a residence's "backyard porch" might be designed to attach a hose 
and water plants with a sprinkler or a hand-valve sprayer, but such a tap can 
also be declared "drinking water" (as it comes from the same source as drinking 
water taps indoors, often from municipal "treated water" — to make it drinkable 
— sources).

>> I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could be justified if we 
>> did
> 
> We don't use different main tags for roads that are private.. If it is the 
> same feature but has different properties secondary tags have been used.

Yeah, there seems to me (as I consider German, Italian, English, Polish, 
others...) many of the perspectives from the worldwide envelope we want to use 
to enclose this tagging, there will be a small number of primary / main tags 
(one or two, maybe three at most) and a whole host of secondary tags.  That's 
the tough part, selecting which are which, but I don't think we want a gigantic 
proliferation of primary / main tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:

It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate subtags.


it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
isn’t in the other.


Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. 
or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more 
CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this 
stuff, just look and smell it!)



I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could be justified if we did



We don't use different main tags for roads that are private.. If it is 
the same feature but has different properties secondary tags have been 
used.


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

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

[Peter Elderson]

I have the impression that slow running water points in Europe rapidly are 
fitted with a push button fot a limited amount of water or a limited tap time. 
Would that turn them into water taps? 

Peter Elderson

> Op 8 okt. 2022 om 19:26 heeft michael spreng (datendelphin) 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Yes, those examples from Eginhard are all fountains. I discussed this at 
> various times with other Swiss mappers. Reasons that some are not tagged as 
> fountain, from those conversations:
> 
> - The term "decorational" confuses
> - The examples on the wiki page are mostly exuberant examples. We should
>  add one of these images to the examples gallery
> - The icon in the editor and on the map also shows a rather fancy
>  fountain
> - It seems we have more specific terms in German for fountains.
>  Springbrunnen, Laufbrunnen, Brunnen... it confuses that in English,
>  everything is mapped to the same term (I'm not a native speaker,
>  please correct me if there are more).
> 
> From my biased German speaking view, it would be nice to have a category for 
> "Laufbrunnen", meaning water is discharged at low pressure, usually 
> horizontally. No on/off switch. You can fill your water bottle easily.
> 
> have a nice day
> Michael
> 
> 
>> On 08.10.22 12:38, Enno Hermann wrote:
>> Taps seem clearly defined to me and I don't think a combination of 
>> amenity=fountain, tap=yes would make sense for the examples on the wiki: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap 
>> 
>> One thing I keep wondering about on this topic is how to tag very simple 
>> fountains that are widespread in Switzerland along hiking paths 
>> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adlisberg_-_Gockhausen_IMG_4215.jpg 
>> )
>>  or in villages 
>> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen1886BassersdorfI.jpg 
>> ). 
>> 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 
>> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen_Waldweg.jpeg 
>> , 
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-05-20-Yverdon_(Foto_Dietrich_Michael_Weidmann)_032.JPG
>>  
>> );
>>  probably these are often only added later for legal reasons when the water 
>> is not tested. It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the 
>> same kind of feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with 
>> appropriate subtags.
> ___
> 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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 8. Okt. 2022 um 19:26 Uhr schrieb michael spreng (datendelphin) <
m...@osm.datendelphin.net>:

> - It seems we have more specific terms in German for fountains.
>Springbrunnen, Laufbrunnen, Brunnen... it confuses that in English,
>everything is mapped to the same term (I'm not a native speaker,
>please correct me if there are more).



Marktbrunnen, Dorfbrunnen, Ziehbrunnen (ok, that's not a fountain),
Zierbrunnen, Wandbrunnen,
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[michael spreng (datendelphin)]

Hi

Yes, those examples from Eginhard are all fountains. I discussed this at 
various times with other Swiss mappers. Reasons that some are not tagged 
as fountain, from those conversations:


- The term "decorational" confuses
- The examples on the wiki page are mostly exuberant examples. We should
  add one of these images to the examples gallery
- The icon in the editor and on the map also shows a rather fancy
  fountain
- It seems we have more specific terms in German for fountains.
  Springbrunnen, Laufbrunnen, Brunnen... it confuses that in English,
  everything is mapped to the same term (I'm not a native speaker,
  please correct me if there are more).

From my biased German speaking view, it would be nice to have a 
category for "Laufbrunnen", meaning water is discharged at low pressure, 
usually horizontally. No on/off switch. You can fill your water bottle 
easily.


have a nice day
Michael


On 08.10.22 12:38, Enno Hermann wrote:
Taps seem clearly defined to me and I don't think a combination of 
amenity=fountain, tap=yes would make sense for the examples on the wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap 



One thing I keep wondering about on this topic is how to tag very simple 
fountains that are widespread in Switzerland along hiking paths 
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adlisberg_-_Gockhausen_IMG_4215.jpg ) or in villages (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen1886BassersdorfI.jpg ). 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 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen_Waldweg.jpeg , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-05-20-Yverdon_(Foto_Dietrich_Michael_Weidmann)_032.JPG ); probably these are often only added later for legal reasons when the water is not tested. It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of feat

ure, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate subtags.



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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 8. Okt. 2022 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :

> > 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.
>


this is called "competing tagging schemes".



>
> > drinking_fountain (which is somehow a duplicate of fountain=drinking ...)
> man_made=drinking_fountain is an exact duplicate of fountain=bubbler;
>


right, fountain=drinking_fountain is just the same as fountain=drinking,
these 2 could be conflated.
man_made=drinking_fountain is not required, I agree.



> there is no reason for having two equivalent tags at all.
>

there are reasons, but if they are exactly the same, it is probably better
in the long run to concentrate on one. Still it happens frequently in OSM,
see for example contact:phone and phone (and similar).



> > 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.
>


that's a pity, because this is where we will likely progress. These
properties often are interesting for a specific use case, e.g. the presence
of a trough is something dog keepers are interested in.



>
> > 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.
>


it would seem completely off to tag a large fountain as man_made=water_tap,
wouldn't it? Who on earth would believe this is an adequate description?
Maybe I do not understand what you are writing, but I do not see a double
meaning, a water tap is a water tap?



> > 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.
>


this is because we are yet missing a fountain-value for this kind of
fountains (what's the specific, maybe that they serve people and animals?).



>
> 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.
>


no, this is not how it works. Usually, if you want to tag something that is
not yet covered, you either invent something ad hoc and use it or if you
are unsure, you ask and try to find a way or invent a new tag so that it
can be adequately represented. You cannot pretend a scheme must be usable
for everything, but it should ideally be extendable to cater for what is
still missing.




> These features are not so widespread; thus the change or deprecation of
> one of them shouldn't be a big problem.
>


which features or tags are you specifically relating to?



> 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).
>


I don't have this impression, I saw this in fewer than a handful of cases,
from hundreds and thousands of fountains. What happens is they use
amenity=drinking_water and so there is no way to tag amenity=fountain.
If they used amenity=fountain with drinking_water=yes it wouldn't
necessarily be wrong, maybe a little bit misleading because one expects a
bigger or more decorated fountain, but you could still find drinking water
if you were thirsty...

Cheers,
Martin
___
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 14:23, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> 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.


this is the result of focusing what apparently most people are interested in 
(drinking water), regardless of the physical details 
It started like this 14-15 years ago, is working well for dataconsumers and 
also for mappers, but it leaves some questions open for those with specific 
requirements.

That’s why we decided some years ago to record additional detail about the 
structure in the fountain tag.
As a parallel development, 2 tags have been created in “man_made”, water taps 
(motivated from the people that wanted to map sources of non-potable water) and 
drinking_fountain (which is somehow a duplicate of fountain=drinking, but could 
help a as lower level “catch-all” when a more specific fountain type is tagged 
which is not known to the data consumer/reader). While I don’t use the 
man_made=drinking_fountain tag, I don’t see a need for explicit deprecation 
either.

Parallel to “fountain” there are other sources of drinking water for different 
contexts, natural springs, water points to get bigger quantities, fountains 
which also provide drinking water, toilets where drinking water may be 
available, watering places, water taps, water wells, etc.

All of these can already be described, although there could (should IMHO) be 
more properties for the details, for example:
 direction of the water,
 presence of a bowl/trough,
 presence of a tap(valve),
 kind of tap (push button or permanent, maybe sensors),
 capacity (how many people can use it at the same time, in case of a drinking 
fountain). 
kind of connection fixture (in case of water point)

Additionally maybe even other properties like 
temperature 
flow quantity 
colour
odor 
or if available chemical composition 

Some of them might be seen implied from other tags (e.g. a water tap will have 
a tap)


> 
> 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.


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.



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



You have to combine several tags to get a detailed picture, while many people 
seem to be fine with amenity=drinking_water and stop there ;-)
I believe our tagging scheme for drinking water is following general interest 
here. It is clear that you can always see things from a different angle and 
come to a different tagging scheme, but to actually change (as opposed to 
amending) what has been built upon in many years by many people, there must be 
terrible flaws with the status quo or very convincing advantages with the new 
way.

Cheers Martin 
___
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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:
> 
> It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
> feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate 
> subtags.


it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
isn’t in the other. I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could 
be justified if we did

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:
> 
> One thing I keep wondering about on this topic is how to tag very simple 
> fountains that are widespread in Switzerland along hiking paths 
> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adlisberg_-_Gockhausen_IMG_4215.jpg) 
> or in villages 
> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen1886BassersdorfI.jpg). 
> 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 
> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen_Waldweg.jpeg, 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-05-20-Yverdon_(Foto_Dietrich_Michael_Weidmann)_032.JPG);


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. 

In general I believe we should have a property like trough=yes for situations 
where the water is collected in a trough and accessible to animals.

Feel free to make up a generic fountain tag for this kind of fountain.

If the water comes from a spring in loco, natural=spring should also be added 

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

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

[Enno Hermann]

Taps seem clearly defined to me and I don't think a combination of
amenity=fountain, tap=yes would make sense for the examples on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap

One thing I keep wondering about on this topic is how to tag very simple
fountains that are widespread in Switzerland along hiking paths (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adlisberg_-_Gockhausen_IMG_4215.jpg)
or in villages (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen1886BassersdorfI.jpg).
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 (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunnen_Waldweg.jpeg,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-05-20-Yverdon_(Foto_Dietrich_Michael_Weidmann)_032.JPG);
probably these are often only added later for legal reasons when the water
is not tested. It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the
same kind of feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with
appropriate subtags.

-Eginhard

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:45 PM Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> 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 

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

[Warin]

On 7/10/22 23:37, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:


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 original intention was to tag decorative fountains.


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.




I would never describe a tap as a fountain. Just me?

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.




I would never describe a 'drinking fountain' as a decorative fountain. 
Just me?





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.




The tag amenity=drinking_water fails to tag non drinking 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.




The combination of man_made=water_tap coexists with 
amenity=drinking_water was done for the render! It serves no other 
function and amenity=drinking_water could be removed and yet retain the 
essential information.





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 

[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