Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

As nobody reacted on my last post on splitting it in a different way, just let us go for voting and see what will happen. Moritz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

Am 30.09.2017 um 19:24 schrieb Viking: According to the huge number of affected nodes (~300k for fire_hydrant:position=*). I'm afraid that a lot of voters will oppose the proposal due to the huge impact of it. In this case we would also not have the well discussed new tags and need to start a ne

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

> According to the huge number of affected nodes (~300k for > fire_hydrant:position=*). I'm afraid that a lot of voters will oppose > the proposal due to the huge impact of it. In this case we would also not > have the well > discussed new tags and need to start a new proposal. It seems we rea

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

Am 2017-09-16 19:19, schrieb Viking: Thank you for splitting it. I think it is worth to think about splitting the two proposals in a different way: One for adding new keys (like flow_rate, water_source) and the other one for migrating the fire_hydrant:* keys to something else. I see two ma

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 2017-09-15 20:34, Viking wrote: > On the contrary, now I think that we must made explicit all water sources and > do not use at all waterbody. Stream, river, lake, pond, sea, ocean are clear > enough to be understood by an occasional mapper and correspond to existing > tags. Instead, to unde

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> I don't like adding more and more tag > but IMHO 1 key = 1 function is much simpler. +1 The volume must be ONLY in water_volume=* and not in implicitly given by another tag. It must br clear enough to be understood by an occasional mapper. More complexity is when a piece of information is impli

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 14. 09. 17 à 13:56, Moritz a écrit : > What is the advantage of clarifying the source to stream, lake, river etc? if this has no advantage of knowing the exact source, don't fill the tag water_source > Why should we add another key (water_volume) to an unlimited source > where the information

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Marc, if you want to group unlimited sources, it seems best to use water_volume instead of creating an "artificial" value for the tag water_source I want to group natural water sources. That these are unlimited is just a side effect. And waterbody is not artificial. What is the advantag

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 14. 09. 17 à 13:02, Moritz a écrit : > What do you mean with >> would not it be easier to keep the 2 separate info? > I would group unlimited, natural sources (stream, river, lake, ocean, > sea) under > water_source=waterbody if you want to group unlimited sources, it seems best to use water_

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Am 2017-09-14 12:46, schrieb marc marc: With that scheme it is clear, that the amount of water is unlimited (waterbody) or limited (pond, together with the volume key) would not it be easier to keep the 2 separate info? water_source for the source (stream, river, lake, ocean, sea) water_volume=

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 14. 09. 17 à 11:03, Moritz a écrit : >>> Maybe we should find a better suitable value for water_source=stream >>> which reflects also lakes. > stream, river, lake, ocean, sea -> water_source=waterbody > pond if it is a natural pond also -> water_source=waterbody > > if it is an artificial creat

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

In a water well, the initial water level corresponds to min_suction_head=# because it is the highest level that water can reach. Then water level will drop and suction head will increase. If you can't measure max_suction_head, simply leave the tag empty. You are right ;) Maybe we should fi

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> For water wells min and max_suction_head is not suitable. There we > should introduce > suction_head=# -1 this will add another tag >I know, that the water level will drop if you suck a lot of water out of >a well. But >it will not be practical to reflect those level changes (how to measure,

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Am 2017-09-08 00:51, schrieb Viking: For these cases and for ponds or rivers where the water level may vary, we can use: min_scution_head=# (meters) when water level is high and the distance from ground level is to the minimum max_suction_head=# (meters) ) when water level is low and the distanc

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> water_source=groundwater +1 > water_level=6 (in meters) ? > I mean the distance between the ground level and the > water level. E.g. the water is 3 m below ground. Suction head is the right word in hydraulics. > I think the water level will drop as large amounts of water are drawn off, so

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 07-Sep-17 05:47 PM, Moritz wrote: And there seems to be a consensus for grouping all things where firefighters can attach their pump under emergency=fire_hydrant. Where there is a dedicated pipe/hydrant. Where there is a 'Static Water Supply' then there are usually no formal fittings of any

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

And there seems to be a consensus for grouping all things where firefighters can attach their pump under emergency=fire_hydrant. Where there is a dedicated pipe/hydrant. Where there is a 'Static Water Supply' then there are usually no formal fittings of any description. 'Static Water Supply' y

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 06-Sep-17 05:57 PM, Moritz wrote: Hi all. I'm back from vacation and see that there was a huge progress in the proposal. And there seems to be a consensus for grouping all things where firefighters can attach their pump under emergency=fire_hydrant. Where there is a dedicated pipe/hydran

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi all. I'm back from vacation and see that there was a huge progress in the proposal. And there seems to be a consensus for grouping all things where firefighters can attach their pump under emergency=fire_hydrant. But I think there are some issues left: # Fire Water wells A pipe connec

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi all. @Marc > and is this tag well used? I am not able to judge whether values are realistic Well, as in every tag, there are wrong values. But now, with a more clear description on the wiki, there will be less errors and future corrections will be possible. Anyway all values of fire_hydrant

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2017, at 22:50, François Lacombe wrote: > > Is this ok or not ? seems reasonable, I think I misunderstood your previous email. As long as there is a device to plug your equipment it's probably ok to name it hydrant, just a pond from which you can pump water do

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Martin 2017-09-04 17:02 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diameter >> > > > unfortunately this is not yet defined unambiguously. I guess it is about > the inner diameter of something? Or sometimes it is about the inner > diameter (e.g. tubes, pipe

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

sent from a phone On 4. Sep 2017, at 17:29, François Lacombe wrote: >> Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of >> water_source=pond. +1, or something similar. We should only tag hydrants as hydrants. A hydrant type should describe the type of hydrant, not the water

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi, 2017-09-04 10:49 GMT+02:00 marc marc : > > I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't > have a type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive > solution. > > Considering that in some countries pressurized hydrants are not > distuinguishable from not

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

2017-09-01 23:08 GMT+02:00 Viking : > If we want to remove fire_hydrant: namespace, what's about transform > fire_hydrant:diameter=# in diameter=# ? It is already documented its use > with hydrants: [0] > And about fire_hydrant:style=*, fire_hydrant:count=# and > fire_hydrant:class=* ? I would kee

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 01. 09. 17 à 00:54, Viking a écrit : > In this sense flow_rate is more appropriate. ok > I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't have a > type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive solution. > Considering that in some countries pressurized hydr

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

If we want to remove fire_hydrant: namespace, what's about transform fire_hydrant:diameter=# in diameter=# ? It is already documented its use with hydrants: [0] And about fire_hydrant:style=*, fire_hydrant:count=# and fire_hydrant:class=* ? I would keep these tags as they are now. [0] https://w

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Walter. > when you say "hydrant", you meen "emergency=fire_hydrant" ok? Yes. > and the substag fire_hydrant:type will specify the subtypes > (underground, pillar, ...) ok? Currently we think to put the subtype in fire_hydrant=underground/pillar... instead of using fire_hydrant:type=under

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi, Am 01.09.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Viking: I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't have a type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive solution. Considering that in some countries pressurized hydrants are not distuinguishable from not pressurized

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

@Francois rating:water -1. It is not intuitive. Against simplicity that we are trying to achieve. @Marc flow_rate should be used for the nominal flow capacity. This is enough for firefightening purposes and it is the only data normally declared by water companies. For example [0] specifies stan

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 28. 08. 17 à 00:18, Viking a écrit : About flow_rate and capacity. The number indicated on the hydrant is IMHO a capacity, it is the maximum that the hydrant is able to do. The flow rate will depend on the use. In this sense it comes closer to capacity (like the maximum parking space) rather th

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Viking, If you mind about capacity unit, you may be interested in rating=* It's for now used in power knowledge, to give the nominal amount of power a power transformer or converter can transmit. A proposal is currently under writing for transformers, and I can refine this key like rating:inte

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 28-Aug-17 09:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/27/17 6:59 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: I can respond to tell you what seems most familiar to me, a native American English speaker: flow_rate in gallons/sec or per minute. Now, that being said, I am all in favor of avoiding the archaic system we sti

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/27/17 6:59 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I can respond to tell you what seems most familiar to me, a native > American English speaker: flow_rate in gallons/sec or per minute. Now, > that being said, I am all in favor of avoiding the archaic system we > still use in the U.S. and using a default

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

I can respond to tell you what seems most familiar to me, a native American English speaker: flow_rate in gallons/sec or per minute. Now, that being said, I am all in favor of avoiding the archaic system we still use in the U.S. and using a default flow_rate in cubic meters/second (or per minute) o

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi, I've been away for a week. I'll try to read all your comments. First of all: Dry riser is a device. Suction point another one. Hydrant another one. Three different things, three different tags. Ok? Then I agree to remove the use of : where possible. The word "capacity" is in most cases synonym

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/21/17 12:58 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > IIRC a Dry Riser in the UK goes from ground level UP to the higher > floors, so AFTER the fire services's pump, and not from a water source > up to the pump. > > http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/dr.html > i think this is correct, a dry riser is not t

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

IIRC a Dry Riser in the UK goes from ground level UP to the higher floors, so AFTER the fire services's pump, and not from a water source up to the pump. http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/dr.html --colin On 2017-08-21 14:14, Philip Barnes wrote: > The correct English term is Dry Riser. >

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

2017-08-21 14:14 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > The correct English term is Dry Riser. > there's a proposal for this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dry_riser_inlet Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 21. 08. 17 à 10:26, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 18. Aug 2017, at 22:33, Moritz wrote: >> I think it's a language issue here. >> Here in Germany these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually the >> German word for it) with proper signs. > suction point translates more accurately

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

The correct English term is Dry Riser. Phil (trigpoint) On 21 August 2017 09:26:54 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> On 18. Aug 2017, at 22:33, Moritz wrote: >> >> I think it's a language issue here. >> Here in Germany these dry hydrants are called suction point (a

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

sent from a phone > On 18. Aug 2017, at 22:33, Moritz wrote: > > I think it's a language issue here. > Here in Germany these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually the > German word for it) with proper signs. suction point translates more accurately to "Absaugstelle", which doesn'

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Richard, I've also no idea what a proper English word for that could be. But as suction point is widely used in this case I would stick on em=suction_point. Moritz On 18 August 2017 23:05:57 CEST, Richard Welty wrote: >On 8/18/17 4:33 PM, Moritz wrote: >> >> Hi Richard >>> in actual real

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

2017-08-21 9:06 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > The values of capacity are typically a single number - 2, 4, 10 etc They > mostly reflect the number of car parking spaces available. So it is a unit > less number - not l/h or m^3/s etc. "Car parks" is a unit as valid as seconds or met

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 21-Aug-17 04:10 PM, François Lacombe wrote: Hi, 2017-08-21 1:40 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: On 21-Aug-17 09:18 AM, marc marc wrote:      The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants  

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi, 2017-08-21 1:40 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 21-Aug-17 09:18 AM, marc marc wrote: > > The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants >>> attributes to GPS is to put them in waypoints names. >>> >> you can also just use the same as you did in the

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 21-Aug-17 09:18 AM, marc marc wrote: The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants attributes to GPS is to put them in waypoints names. you can also just use the same as you did in the past, as you do not use the name of the osm tag anyway Do not use the name

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants > attributes to GPS is to put them in waypoints names. you can also just use the same as you did in the past, as you do not use the name of the osm tag anyway > For sake of simplicity, fire_hydrant: and suction_point nam

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Viking, Thank you for synthesis and proposal update. 2017-08-20 2:02 GMT+02:00 Viking : > > Francois, as a firefighters, I can say that it's very very important to > distinguish a pressurized hydrant from a dry hydrant (or suction point). > And we all agree. > And now I explain the reason why

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> Umm reflective is not a colour. In my understanding, reflective:colour should be the colour of reflective stripes, if present. > What about tagging both as fire_hydrant:type=pillar > and something like > pillar:type=dry_barrel|wet_barrel +1 Best regards Alberto --- Questa e-mail è stata con

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/20/17 4:22 PM, Moritz wrote: > Just one more thing: > > Dry and wet barrel hydrants are both pillar type hydrants. > > What about tagging both as fire_hydrant:type=pillar > and something like > pillar:type=dry_barrel|wet_barrel > > So the people who are just interested in the type of hydrants

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Just one more thing: Dry and wet barrel hydrants are both pillar type hydrants. What about tagging both as fire_hydrant:type=pillar and something like pillar:type=dry_barrel|wet_barrel So the people who are just interested in the type of hydrants (underground, wall, pillar...) can evaluate fh:t

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

>For suction point another proposal of refinement is needed. +1 I'm currently on vacation but will do something when I'm back in two weeks. So will be more quiet from my side until then. Cheers Moritz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 20-Aug-17 10:02 AM, Viking wrote: colour:bonnet colour:cap colour:reflective seems for me to be in the reverse order the colour of a building is building:colour not colour:building the same exist with roof:colour light:colour ... +1 Fixed. Umm reflective is not a colour. Arr you now haver

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

> colour:bonnet colour:cap colour:reflective seems for me to be in the reverse > order the colour of a building is building:colour not colour:building the > same exist with roof:colour light:colour ... +1 Fixed. > survey:date is the date of a survey (someone was there) not a functional > check.

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/18/17 4:33 PM, Moritz wrote: > > Hi Richard >> in actual real world usage, however, they are called dry hydrants by >> their >> users (the fire departments). they are even signed as "dry hydrants" in >> many >> cases. there's such a sign not far from me, i can go take a picture of >> it. > I t

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Richard >in actual real world usage, however, they are called dry hydrants by >their >users (the fire departments). they are even signed as "dry hydrants" in >many >cases. there's such a sign not far from me, i can go take a picture of >it. I think it's a language issue here. Here in Germany

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

2017-08-18 15:13 GMT+02:00 marc marc : > another part with > depreciating fire_hydrant:type=pond <> pressure=0 <> emergency=water_source > +1 With 733 664 emergency=fire_hydrant and 4 370 suction_point, this particular point has chances to make the whole proposal rejected despite some points hav

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Le 17. 08. 17 à 16:47, Viking a écrit : > I'm waiting for other opinions. colour:bonnet colour:cap colour:reflective seems for me to be in the reverse order the colour of a building is building:colour not colour:building the same exist with roof:colour light:colour ... survey:date is the date of

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> there are always exceptions. not far from me, there's a traditional >> hydrant of the type normally used with pressurized systems, but >> it's sourced from a pond. the reason is that the pond is elevated, some >> distance fro

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 18-Aug-17 01:38 AM, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a fire engine to suck the water out. It does not look like a traditional fi

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 17-Aug-17 07:17 PM, Viking wrote: My point is suction points and fire hydrant are different but compatible things, as follow : emergency=suction_point is a prefered place where to pump water in a river emergency=fire_hydrant is a kind of device which may or not be present in places like suct

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Viking, 2017-08-17 16:47 GMT+02:00 Viking : > Francois, I understand the issue that in some countries the normal mapper > can't distinguish a dry hydrant from a pressurized hydrant and he would tag > a dry hydrant simply with emergency=fire_hydrant. But he will not use the > correct tag in any

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Moritz, 2017-08-17 14:50 GMT+02:00 Moritz : > > Ok, my understanding is you want to have only to categories: > > * Pressurized water sources (fire hydrants) > * "dry" hydrants where a pump has to be brought to get water ("dry" > hydrants or suction points or whatever tag it will be) > Not onl

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On August 17, 2017 11:38:10 AM EDT, Richard Welty wrote: >On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: >> >> That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized >> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a >fire >> engine to suck the water out. It does not

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: > > That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized > hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a fire > engine to suck the water out. It does not look like a traditional fire > hydrant at all. there are always e

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 08/17/2017 10:47 AM, Viking wrote: > In the case of commercial/industrial local water networks fed by pumps, we > all agree to use emergency=fire_hydrant. Because externally (at least here in > Italy) they are not distinguishable from hydrants fed by public mains and > they have the same usag

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/17/17 10:30 AM, Moritz wrote: > > I would rely on the Collins English Dictionary in this point rather > then on wikipedia [1] > >> (General Engineering) an outlet from a water main, usually consisting >> of an upright pipe with a valve attached, from which water can be >> tapped for fighting f

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi all. I'm a firefighter too. Nice to meet you. In the case of commercial/industrial local water networks fed by pumps, we all agree to use emergency=fire_hydrant. Because externally (at least here in Italy) they are not distinguishable from hydrants fed by public mains and they have the same

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi Mark, the hydrant (by the meaning of the word) is something connected to the water main ;) If I read the previous wikipedia link, there are pressurized hydrant and not-pressurized hydrant. If wikipedia use the word hydrant for both, maybe the "by the meaning of the world" is that. I wou

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 08/17/2017 10:12 AM, marc marc wrote: > Hello, > > Le 17. 08. 17 à 14:50, Moritz a écrit : >> the hydrant (by the meaning of the word) is something connected >> to the water main ;) > If I read the previous wikipedia link, there are pressurized hydrant and > not-pressurized hydrant. > If wikip

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 08/17/2017 08:50 AM, Moritz wrote: > But "dry" hydrants are always connected to other water sources like > ponds, wells, water_tanks. > They are not isolated things on the field. So you have the "dry" hydrant > which is next to a pond/lake/etc. and > connected to it. A dry hydrant is just a con

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hello, Le 17. 08. 17 à 14:50, Moritz a écrit : > the hydrant (by the meaning of the word) is something connected > to the water main ;) If I read the previous wikipedia link, there are pressurized hydrant and not-pressurized hydrant. If wikipedia use the word hydrant for both, maybe the "by the m

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi all and thank you for those interesting developments My point is all about semantics and ease the mappers' work Like everyone, I agree to distinguish pressurized fire hydrants, and "dry" hydrants like ones where a pump is required to get water. But not in favor of an additional value of

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi all and thank you for those interesting developments My point is all about semantics and ease the mappers' work Like everyone, I agree to distinguish pressurized fire hydrants, and "dry" hydrants like ones where a pump is required to get water. But not in favor of an additional value of emergen

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Suction point is probably not the right word in English. I haven't found any specific idiomatic usage of this phrase, so it seems to just mean "point where suction is present/applied". I think it suction_point is just a word by word translation of German word for it (point where to suck wat

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Suction point is probably not the right word in English. I haven't found any specific idiomatic usage of this phrase, so it seems to just mean "point where suction is present/applied". Dry Hydrant seems a better fit for what you are discussing, do you agree? http://www.nfpa.org/assets/gallery/fir

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Hi François, hi Alberto, we had in the past days a discussion on the german OSM forum[3] and agreed on the point that a point where you can suck water from a water source is a emergency=suction_point. Our understanding of a fire hydrant is, that it is connected to a water main and thus any su

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

>My point is suction points and fire hydrant are different but compatible >things, as follow : >emergency=suction_point is a prefered place where to pump water in a river >emergency=fire_hydrant >is a kind of device which may or not be present in places like suction points >but in a large amount

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

> in the section on the AWWA color scheme, i changed "tops" to "bonnet" as > bonnet is the correct technical term for the "top" of a hydrant. do we > want > to add a definition that makes this clear? Sure, add a definition for bonnet and caps, if you can. Thanks to everybody. Alberto --- Ques

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

in the section on the AWWA color scheme, i changed "tops" to "bonnet" as bonnet is the correct technical term for the "top" of a hydrant. do we want to add a definition that makes this clear? On 8/4/17 3:55 PM, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Viking, > > I took some time to change a bit the proposal

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hi Viking, I took some time to change a bit the proposal presentation without changing any of proposed points/keys https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions I found useful to add a values to be replaced at the bottom of the tagging chapter to give a better idea

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hello. After two weeks on holiday, I'm back to discuss on fire hydrants proposal. I've updated the page [1] according to last comments about fire_hydrant:couplings_type and fire_hydrant:couplings_size. If you think it's ok, I will go on putting it on vote. Best regards Alberto [1] https://wiki.o

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

> * Can I or would you add an example subsection with pictures giving at least > the different situations depicted with fire_hydrant:type key ? Of course you can, Francois: any contriubution is welcome. > With fire_hydrant:couplings, you have to guess what this means. > Without reading the wiki,

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

2017-07-04 18:15 GMT+02:00 marc marc : > Le 04. 07. 17 à 17:14, François Lacombe a écrit : > > I still have some comments : > > * fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without > > the :type suffix > > * fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Le 04. 07. 17 à 17:14, François Lacombe a écrit : > I still have some comments : > * fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without > the :type suffix > * fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the > benefit of adding :type here (feel free to giv

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hi Viking, Thank you for proposal updating I still have some comments : * fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without the :type suffix * fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints) * Can

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

I've updated the page [1], according to François' suggestions. Please check it. Alberto [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions --- Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

>fire_hydrant: namespace is too >restrictive >regarding>fire_hydrant:water_source>Can't we just use water_source>instead? >Many other devices using>water can take benefit from this. +1 >What is the difference between in_service=no and disused=yes ? +1 I would use disused:emergency=fire_hydrant

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hi, This proposal sounds good, and I've got questions or comments fire_hydrant: namespace is too restrictive regarding fire_hydrant:water_source Can't we just use water_source instead? Many other devices using water can take benefit from this. What is the difference between in_service=no and dis

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Okay, I got the difference between the pillar hydrants. What about dry-hydrants where you need to pump water out of a river/pond. There is not a shutoff in the center of the bonnet. Formerly this [1] would have been: > fire_hydrant:type=pond > fire_hydrant:pressure=suction WIth the new proposal

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On Jun 17, 2017 2:30 PM, "Robert Koch" wrote: Moreover how useful is "pillar" if there is "dry_barrel" and "wet_barrel"? How would non-fire-fighters or non-local fire-fighters tag such pillar hydrants? "Pillar" is "I don't know which." There are a few hydrants near me that have a different appe

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

I changed the proposal at [1] to have "l/min" instead of "lpm". While "gpm" is often used, "lpm" isn't. Rationale: According to [2] "km/h" should be preferred over "kmph" (which is highly discouraged). Additionally I added "survey:date", which should be included as well. Regarding the count: I'm

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

> for flow_capacity, should m3/h be preferred instead of lpm ? Normally, the best unit for fire purposes is lpm (or gpm), because you can easily determine how many minutes it takes to refill e.g. a 4500 litres fire engine. Also fire pumps specs are in lpm or gpm. > fire_hydrant:coupling_type ->

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Le 16. 06. 17 à 13:06, Viking a écrit : > I've updated the page [1] for flow_capacity, should m3/h be preferred instead of lpm ? fire_hydrant:coupling_type -> fire_hydrant:coupling:type fire_hydrant:couplings -> fire_hydrant:couplings:size for people unable to recognize coupling diameters, is it

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

I've updated the page [1] with the new tags that we are discussing in this list. Please check the page and update it (for example with valid coupling_type values). The aim is to have all the new tags in one page. And when we will be ready, insert them in the official fire hydrant page. We could

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

sent from a phone > On 15. Jun 2017, at 14:38, Robert Koch wrote: > > Open: How do we reflect the unit? Millimetres won't work for the US. > Possibilities: >fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5" > OR: >fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5 >fire_hydrant:couplings_unit=inch I prefer

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On 6/15/17 10:02 AM, Viking wrote: > About the wrench, Richard, we could create the subtag fire_hydrant:wrench. > In Italy we have standard pentagonal or square wrench. What would you insert > in this tag? Type and size of the wrench? Something like: > fire_hydrant:wrench=square30 > Or, like cou

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

According to this wiki entry: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units it would be: fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5" If not given, a default unit could be specified by the wiki entry (based on official SI units; therefore metric). Alternatively we could tell people to always us

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hello, fire_hydrant:outlets and fire_hydrant:couplings are not so intuitive. Without reading the wiki or the mailing, people can fill in with "yes" or with outlets number (it is the meaning of fire_hydrant:count ?) As a not-fireman, I unable to give the exact diameter of outlets. But I can and I

  1   2   >