Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

[Moritz]

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

[Walter Nordmann]

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 new proposal.

It seems we reached consensus on all points of the proposal [1], so I wouldn't 
worry about a rejection.
I would simply go to vote.
Other opinions?

no, just keep going

Regards
walrter

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

[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 new proposal.

It seems we reached consensus on all points of the proposal [1], so I wouldn't 
worry about a rejection.
I would simply go to vote.
Other opinions?

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants split

[Moritz]

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 main reasons for it:

1. Migration

According to the huge number of affected nodes (~300k for 
fire_hydrant:position=*) [1] 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.


2. The part 2 proposal works only if part is agreed on. At least for 
pump and suction_head keys. So a rejected part 1 proposal makes the 
second more or less useless.



So I would put the changes from part 2  (pump, suction_head, wrench) in 
part 1 and move the whole migration issues from part 1 to part 2





Since we are using colon ( : ) in many tags, I'm wondering if we
should switch back to:
couplings_type -> couplings:type
couplings_diameters -> couplings:diameters


+1

Cheers
Moritz

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions#Values_to_be_replaced


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Colin Smale]

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 undestand what waterbody would mean, mappers and users 
> should read the wiki explanation.

The distinctions given in the wiki between a stream and a river, and
between a pond and a lake, are far from objective. Just because the
words are familiar does not in itself guarantee good-quality
(objectively and verifiably correct) tagging. 

Apparently there is a scientific distinction between a pond and a lake,
based on whether sunlight reaches the bottom. I also found a reference
to a river/stream distinction based on stream order. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> 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 implicitly given by another 
tag, not when two different tags gives two different information.

It has no much sense to group only natural sources in waterbody, but leave 
artificial ponds outside. First of all because it may be that you can't easily 
distinguish an artificial pond from a natural pond. Then there is no advantage 
in having only ponds made explicit but not other sources.
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 undestand what waterbody would mean, mappers and users should 
read the wiki explanation.
Moreover you can deduce some useful information from water sources: for example 
that a stream could be dry, or that sea provides salt water, that is unwanted 
in pumps.

Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 "unlimited" is implicitly given by the 
> water_source=waterbody key?

it is not implicitly that a source=pond need to be change
to source=waterbody if the pond is big enough because
you would use this value as an alias to "water_volume unlimited"

I don't like adding more and more tag
but IMHO 1 key = 1 function is much simpler.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 advantage of clarifying the source to stream, lake, river 
etc?

For me it makes the key water_source more complex without an advantage.



I think it is easy and a better quality to put the type of source
in water_source and the volume in water_volume instead of having
the volume that influences the source value.


Why should we add another key (water_volume) to an unlimited source 
where
the information "unlimited" is implicitly given by the 
water_source=waterbody key?


Again this would add more complexity.

Cheers
Moritz

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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_volume instead of creating an "artificial" value for
the tag water_source

I think it is easy and a better quality to put the type of source
in water_source and the volume in water_volume instead of having
the volume that influences the source value.

if it makes no sense for you to distinguish between river, lake,
don't fill water_source
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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=x m3 or illimited (or something like that)


I'm afraid that I'm not understanding you right.

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

Artificially created pond as
water_source=pond

and where the volume is known (pond, swimming_pool) add the
water_volume key.

For hydrants it makes no sense to distinguish between river, lake etc. 
The important information is
that it is one of the unlimited sources. And to minimize the amount of 
values waterbody should be enough.

Therefore we don't need  water_volume=unlimited in this case.

Maybe  water_volume=unlimited should be optional and the default value?

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 created pond then it should be water_source=pond
> and get the water_volume key.
> 
> 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=x m3 or illimited (or something like that)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 find a better suitable value for water_source=stream
which reflects also lakes.
What about
water_source=waterbody instead of stream?


So pond, stream, river, lake go in waterbody? For me it is ok.



I would go for

stream, river, lake, ocean, sea -> water_source=waterbody

pond if it is a natural pond also -> water_source=waterbody

if it is an artificial created pond then it should be water_source=pond
and get the water_volume key.

With that scheme it is clear, that the amount of water is unlimited 
(waterbody) or limited (pond, together with the

volume key)

Moritz




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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> 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, 
>after which time etc).

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.


>The default unit should be m^3 because if you have a pond with 1000m^3 
>1000 is better to use then 100 l.

Already done.


> Maybe we should find a better suitable value for water_source=stream 
> which reflects also lakes.
> What about
> water_source=waterbody instead of stream?

So pond, stream, river, lake go in waterbody? For me it is ok.

Best regards,
Alberto



---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 distance
from ground level is to the maximum


For water wells min and max_suction_head is not suitable. There we 
should introduce

suction_head=#

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, 
after which time etc).



You are right, m^3 is shorter. But I don't mind if it's 75000 l or 
75m^3.
Small, medium, large don't have to be, because it is not as well 
defined as a absolute value.
I think it depends on the country, so the applications using this 
information can convert from l to m^3 or small|medium|large

+1


The default unit should be m^3 because if you have a pond with 1000m^3 
1000 is better to use then 100 l.



Maybe we should find a better suitable value for water_source=stream 
which reflects also lakes.


What about

water_source=waterbody instead of stream?


Cheers
Moritz

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> 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 
> you may need the distance from ground level to the bottom of the water source.

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 distance from 
ground level is to the maximum


> pump_type=bilge_pump|electric_pump|none ?

Maybe integrated_pump=yes|bilge_pump|electric_pump|none ?


> water_source=water_tank
+1


> water_volume=small|medium|large|# (small 75–150 m^3, medium) 150–300 m^3 and 
> large>300 m^3 or numeric value).
-1


> water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).
+1


> You are right, m^3 is shorter. But I don't mind if it's 75000 l or 75m^3.
> Small, medium, large don't have to be, because it is not as well defined as a 
> absolute value.
> I think it depends on the country, so the applications using this information 
> can convert from l to m^3 or small|medium|large
+1


> # fire_hydrant:class=*
> Should be clarified what AA, A, B, C means.

It is already explained in the proposal chapter "American Water Works 
Association colour scheme"


> 'Static  Water Supply' you mean a place near a pond/lake/stream where 
> no prebuilt pipe is available and it is just a place where to park the 
> fire engine to get easy access to the water by using there own hoses?
>
> As far as I understood that will be the emergency=suction_point
> That is too restrictive - limited to natural=water and rivers, I'd think 
> streams would be accepted too.
 > 'Static  Water Supply' around me are mostly private backyard swimming pools 
 > (leisure=swimming_pool access=private).
> Where the owner agrees a 'SWS' sign is placed at the property boundary close 
> to the road.

No, it isn't restrictive. For swimming pools you can place a node where you can 
park the fire engine (or where there is the SWS sign) with tags 
emergecy=suction_point + water_source=swimming_pool + water_volume + ...


Cheers
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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
description.
'Static  Water Supply' you mean a place near a pond/lake/stream where 
no prebuilt pipe is available and it is just a place where to park the 
fire engine to get easy access

to the water by using there own hoses?

As far as I understood that will be the emergency=suction_point
That is too restrictive - limited to natural=water and rivers, I'd think 
streams would be accepted too.
 'Static  Water Supply' around me are mostly private backyard swimming 
pools (leisure=swimming_pool access=private). Where the owner agrees a 
'SWS' sign is placed at the property boundary close to the road.
Other things with an SWS sign are rainwater tanks (typically 1,000 to 
10,000 litres, the next development on my property requires a 5,000l tank).

See
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=319
http://arcadiarfs.org.au/bush-fire-survival/2013/3/26/static-water-supplies-sws





But I think there are some issues left:

# Fire Water wells

A pipe connected not to a pond but to the groundwater.

Should be

water_source=groundwater

How to tag the water level (distance between water level and ground 
level)?


water_level=6 (in meters) ?

Also there are water wells which have a water level below approx 8 m 
and due to physics there is an additional pump needed. This pump is 
integrated in the
water well at water level and is either driven by electricity or 
external applied water pressure.


Humm water level is usually taken as the height reached by the water,
from the bottom of a well/dam/tank.
If you are sucking then you might get to the bottom .. so you would
need equipment to get to the very base of the water.
Must be a better term for this parameter? You want the dimension from
the pump point to the minimum (most distant height) water level.


You are right. I mean the distance between the ground level and the 
water level. E.g. the water is 3 m below ground.
I think the water level will drop as large amounts of water are drawn 
off, so you may need the distance from ground level to the bottom of the 
water source.

Does anybody have a better idea then water_level?

Not yet. Let me think on it?


Background is: the lower the vertical distance between water level and 
pump the easier it is to suck the water to the pump. Depending on the
pump and hoses (small airgaps at the hose connections etc) it can be 
difficult to get water from vert. distances > 6/7m.


For firefighters this information is important, because if they have 
more then one well to choose from they can use the one with the 
smaller vert. distance.

Usually they will use the closest one, until it runs out.





water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).


Around me capacity is stated in litres? So this could be a optional 
unit.

I'd rather not see a small|medium|large value.

You are right, m^3 is shorter. But I don't mind if it's 75000 l or 75m^3.
Small, medium, large don't have to be, because it is not as well 
defined as a absolute value.


I think it depends on the country, so the applications using this 
information can convert from l to m^3 or small|medium|large


Moritz

___
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] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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' you mean a place near a pond/lake/stream where no 
prebuilt pipe is available and it is just a place where to park the fire 
engine to get easy access

to the water by using there own hoses?

As far as I understood that will be the emergency=suction_point



But I think there are some issues left:

# Fire Water wells

A pipe connected not to a pond but to the groundwater.

Should be

water_source=groundwater

How to tag the water level (distance between water level and ground 
level)?


water_level=6 (in meters) ?

Also there are water wells which have a water level below approx 8 m 
and due to physics there is an additional pump needed. This pump is 
integrated in the
water well at water level and is either driven by electricity or 
external applied water pressure.


Humm water level is usually taken as the height reached by the water,
from the bottom of a well/dam/tank.
If you are sucking then you might get to the bottom .. so you would
need equipment to get to the very base of the water.
Must be a better term for this parameter? You want the dimension from
the pump point to the minimum (most distant height) water level.


You are right. I mean the distance between the ground level and the 
water level. E.g. the water is 3 m below ground.

Does anybody have a better idea then water_level?

Background is: the lower the vertical distance between water level and 
pump the easier it is to suck the water to the pump. Depending on the
pump and hoses (small airgaps at the hose connections etc) it can be 
difficult to get water from vert. distances > 6/7m.


For firefighters this information is important, because if they have 
more then one well to choose from they can use the one with the smaller 
vert. distance.





water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).


Around me capacity is stated in litres? So this could be a optional 
unit.

I'd rather not see a small|medium|large value.
You are right, m^3 is shorter. But I don't mind if it's 75000 l or 
75m^3.
Small, medium, large don't have to be, because it is not as well defined 
as a absolute value.


I think it depends on the country, so the applications using this 
information can convert from l to m^3 or small|medium|large


Moritz

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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/hydrant. Where there is a 'Static Water 
Supply' then there are usually no formal fittings of any description.


But I think there are some issues left:

# Fire Water wells

A pipe connected not to a pond but to the groundwater.

Should be

water_source=groundwater

How to tag the water level (distance between water level and ground 
level)?


water_level=6 (in meters) ?

Also there are water wells which have a water level below approx 8 m 
and due to physics there is an additional pump needed. This pump is 
integrated in the
water well at water level and is either driven by electricity or 
external applied water pressure.


Humm water level is usually taken as the height reached by the water, 
from the bottom of a well/dam/tank.
If you are sucking then you might get to the bottom .. so you would need 
equipment to get to the very base of the water.
Must be a better term for this parameter? You want the dimension from 
the pump point to the minimum (most distant height) water level.




The pressure tag is not suitable for it as the water does not need to 
be sucked out and the pressure is not known.
But the information is important for fire fighters to know which 
additional equipment they need.


pump_type=bilge_pump|electric_pump|none ?


# Water tanks

water_source=water_tank

The capacity of the water_tank should also be attached to the hydrant.

water_volume=small|medium|large|# (small 75–150 m^3, medium) 150–300 
m^3 and large>300 m^3 or numeric value).


# Fire water pond

water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).


Around me capacity is stated in litres? So this could be a optional unit.
I'd rather not see a small|medium|large value. But I suppose some one 
will want it, though the numbers for hte differences will probably be 
argued over. Place the numeric value first and state it as a preference?




# fire_hydrant:class=*

Should be clarified what AA, A, B, C means.

Cheers
Moritz

Am 2017-09-06 00:24, schrieb Viking:

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:diameter=# should go in the new tag
diameter=#, or whatever else we choose.


what do others think? if somebody find it is not appropriate, I 
think that it would be desirable to split out the "meaning change"

to validate the rest of the proposal.


At this point, after the discussion of pros and cons, I think that the
"meaning change" has no more sense.


@Francois:

fire_hydrant:count=#  -->  devices=#

+1 I'm against grouping more than one hydrant one a node, but if we
want to keep this possibility, devices=# for me is better.


A pressurized hydrant : emergency=fire_hydrant + optional 
water_source=network + even more optional pressure=*

A pillar connected to a water tank where water can be pumped from :
emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=water_tank + pressure=0
A pipe going permanently in a river or a pond where water can be 
pumped from :

emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=pond + pressure=0


+1


@Martin:


unfortunately this is not yet defined unambiguously


In hydraulics in general, the diameter is the nominal one [0] that is
related but not equal to the inner diameter. On hydrants in
particular, the number that is die-casted on them, is the nominal
diameter of the undergound junction towards the water network.
Also couplings diameters are always nominal diameters of the threads 
[1].

Maybe it is enough to document on the wiki that when diameter=* is
used for hydrants, it is referred to nominal diameter?


Not sure about pressure=0 though, shouldn't that be 1? The wiki 
mentions also "suction" for dry hydrants


In hydraulics, pressure normally is measured relatively to atmospheric
pressure. So 0 is correct. However, to avoid misunderstandings, we can
keep pressure=suction for these cases.

Best regards,
Alberto

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_metric_screw_thread





---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast 
antivirus.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus





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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 connected not to a pond but to the groundwater.

Should be

water_source=groundwater

How to tag the water level (distance between water level and ground 
level)?


water_level=6 (in meters) ?

Also there are water wells which have a water level below approx 8 m and 
due to physics there is an additional pump needed. This pump is 
integrated in the
water well at water level and is either driven by electricity or 
external applied water pressure.


The pressure tag is not suitable for it as the water does not need to be 
sucked out and the pressure is not known.
But the information is important for fire fighters to know which 
additional equipment they need.


pump_type=bilge_pump|electric_pump|none ?


# Water tanks

water_source=water_tank

The capacity of the water_tank should also be attached to the hydrant.

water_volume=small|medium|large|# (small 75–150 m^3, medium) 150–300 m^3 
and large>300 m^3 or numeric value).


# Fire water pond

water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).

# fire_hydrant:class=*

Should be clarified what AA, A, B, C means.

Cheers
Moritz

Am 2017-09-06 00:24, schrieb Viking:

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:diameter=# should go in the new tag
diameter=#, or whatever else we choose.


what do others think? if somebody find it is not appropriate, I think 
that it would be desirable to split out the "meaning change"

to validate the rest of the proposal.


At this point, after the discussion of pros and cons, I think that the
"meaning change" has no more sense.


@Francois:

fire_hydrant:count=#  -->  devices=#

+1 I'm against grouping more than one hydrant one a node, but if we
want to keep this possibility, devices=# for me is better.


A pressurized hydrant : emergency=fire_hydrant + optional 
water_source=network + even more optional pressure=*

A pillar connected to a water tank where water can be pumped from :
emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=water_tank + pressure=0
A pipe going permanently in a river or a pond where water can be 
pumped from :

emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=pond + pressure=0


+1


@Martin:


unfortunately this is not yet defined unambiguously


In hydraulics in general, the diameter is the nominal one [0] that is
related but not equal to the inner diameter. On hydrants in
particular, the number that is die-casted on them, is the nominal
diameter of the undergound junction towards the water network.
Also couplings diameters are always nominal diameters of the threads 
[1].

Maybe it is enough to document on the wiki that when diameter=* is
used for hydrants, it is referred to nominal diameter?


Not sure about pressure=0 though, shouldn't that be 1? The wiki 
mentions also "suction" for dry hydrants


In hydraulics, pressure normally is measured relatively to atmospheric
pressure. So 0 is correct. However, to avoid misunderstandings, we can
keep pressure=suction for these cases.

Best regards,
Alberto

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_metric_screw_thread





---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast 
antivirus.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

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:diameter=# should go in the new tag 
diameter=#, or whatever else we choose.


> what do others think? if somebody find it is not appropriate, I think that it 
> would be desirable to split out the "meaning change"
> to validate the rest of the proposal.

At this point, after the discussion of pros and cons, I think that the "meaning 
change" has no more sense.


@Francois:

fire_hydrant:count=#  -->  devices=#

+1 I'm against grouping more than one hydrant one a node, but if we want to 
keep this possibility, devices=# for me is better.


> A pressurized hydrant : emergency=fire_hydrant + optional 
> water_source=network + even more optional pressure=*
> A pillar connected to a water tank where water can be pumped from :
> emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=water_tank + pressure=0
> A pipe going permanently in a river or a pond where water can be pumped from :
> emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=pond + pressure=0

+1


@Martin:

> unfortunately this is not yet defined unambiguously

In hydraulics in general, the diameter is the nominal one [0] that is related 
but not equal to the inner diameter. On hydrants in particular, the number that 
is die-casted on them, is the nominal diameter of the undergound junction 
towards the water network.
Also couplings diameters are always nominal diameters of the threads [1].
Maybe it is enough to document on the wiki that when diameter=* is used for 
hydrants, it is referred to nominal diameter?


> Not sure about pressure=0 though, shouldn't that be 1? The wiki mentions also 
> "suction" for dry hydrants 

In hydraulics, pressure normally is measured relatively to atmospheric 
pressure. So 0 is correct. However, to avoid misunderstandings, we can keep 
pressure=suction for these cases.

Best regards,
Alberto

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_metric_screw_thread





---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 doesn't qualify, obviously.

Not sure about pressure=0 though, shouldn't that be 1? The wiki mentions also 
"suction" for dry hydrants 


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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, pipelines, pipes, etc.), while in other cases it is
> the outer diameter (e.g. tree trunk, pole, tower, ...)? Maybe we should
> distinguish these, at least for hollow things?
>

Diameter is indirectly linked to fluids ability to flow inside the pipe. So
inner diameter is my first choice.


> I agree with the idea to group all water sources under fire_hydrant term.
>
> -1, if you want to group all water sources (what I don't think is needed),
> use water_source or something similar
>

Let me elaborate a bit more
The point is precisely to differentiate with water_source, but to use
emergency=fire_hydrant in all cases

A pressurized hydrant : emergency=fire_hydrant + optional
water_source=network + even more optional pressure=*

A pillar connected to a water tank where water can be pumped from :
emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=water_tank + pressure=0
A pipe going permanently in a river or a pond where water can be pumped
from : emergency=fire_hydrant + water_source=pond + pressure=0

but differences will still be there, no point to make them disapear at all
Is this ok or not ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 source 


> 
> I agree with the idea to group all water sources under fire_hydrant term.


-1, if you want to group all water sources (what I don't think is needed), use 
water_source or something similar 

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 pressurized ones, I'm starting to think that the
> only way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
> > - hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or
> not. pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete
> the information.
> > - suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses
> and pump.
> > I would prefer to have only pressurized hydrants in
> emergency=fire_hydrant, but there are too many cases that can't be easily
> handled.
> > Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of
> water_source=pond.
> It look like fine for me.
> what do others think? if somebody find it is not appropriate,
> I think that it would be desirable to split out the "meaning change"
> to validate the rest of the proposal.
>

I agree with the idea to group all water sources under fire_hydrant term.
Nevertheless, as Marc said, the change would be more bearable if voted step
by step
There was proposals completely rejected just because of one or two
particular point without consensus.


>
> Le 01. 09. 17 à 23:08, Viking a écrit :
>  > 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]
> yes the prefix in "fire_hydrant:diameter" is bad
> it is not the diameter of fire_hydrant.
> the wiki said it is the diameter of the underground pipe.
> and is this tag well used? I am not able to judge whether values
> are realistic
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fire_hydrant%3Adiameter
> It look like however that a lot of value concerns the diameter
> of the coupling
> water_source:diameter <> coupling:diameter could make
> confusion impossible
>

water_source sounds like virtual concept, can it have a diameter ?
It would be nicer to deal with "input", not source.
I agree for couplings:diameter.

The same question had been asked in dry riser proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Dry_riser_inlet#Add_diameter


>  > fire_hydrant:count=# ?
> same question, do we often have several hydrants in the same place
> that are mapped with only one node? or people are mistaken
> and indicates the number of coupling? I have never yet met the case.
> maybe we need to ask mapper that use it.
>

More generally, a current proposal aims to introduce devices=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Transformer_extension_proposal#Transformer_sets

It is actually possible to factorize features with same figures and
functions on a single node, but it have to be well documented in wiki
That's what devices=* is intended for.



>
>  > I would keep these tags as they are now.
> I think it is useful to stop the list of changes otherwise
> it is a work without an end.
>


These changes had been waited for years. A few weeks is an appropriate
delay to improve a bit
This pleasant discussion is a great step IMHO.
Even in "simple" proposal with only a few tags, months are needed to make
all things clear and let everyone test what is proposed.
We need to review everything before voting


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 keep these tags as they are now.
>
> [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, pipelines, pipes, etc.), while in other cases it is
the outer diameter (e.g. tree trunk, pole, tower, ...)? Maybe we should
distinguish these, at least for hollow things?

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 hydrants are not 
> distuinguishable from not pressurized ones, I'm starting to think that the 
> only way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
> - hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. 
> pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the 
> information.
> - suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and 
> pump.
> I would prefer to have only pressurized hydrants in emergency=fire_hydrant, 
> but there are too many cases that can't be easily handled.
> Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of 
> water_source=pond.
It look like fine for me.
what do others think? if somebody find it is not appropriate,
I think that it would be desirable to split out the "meaning change"
to validate the rest of the proposal.

Le 01. 09. 17 à 23:08, Viking a écrit :
 > 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]
yes the prefix in "fire_hydrant:diameter" is bad
it is not the diameter of fire_hydrant.
the wiki said it is the diameter of the underground pipe.
and is this tag well used? I am not able to judge whether values
are realistic
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fire_hydrant%3Adiameter
It look like however that a lot of value concerns the diameter
of the coupling
water_source:diameter <> coupling:diameter could make
confusion impossible

 > fire_hydrant:count=# ?
same question, do we often have several hydrants in the same place
that are mapped with only one node? or people are mistaken
and indicates the number of coupling? I have never yet met the case.
maybe we need to ask mapper that use it.

 > I would keep these tags as they are now.
I think it is useful to stop the list of changes otherwise
it is a work without an end.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[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 keep these tags as they are now.

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diameter

Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

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=underground/pillar...

Thank you for your emergency map.

Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Walter Nordmann]

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 ones, I'm starting to think that the only 
way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
- hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. 
pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the 
information.
- suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and 
pump.

sounds good for me. keep it simple.

Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of 
water_source=pond.

i agree.

i could not follow the whole discussion. and therefore two "stupid" 
questions:


when you say "hydrant", you meen "emergency=fire_hydrant"  ok?
and the substag fire_hydrant:type will specify the subtypes 
(underground, pillar, ...)  ok?


i can and would like to accept any solution, which goes this simple way.

regards
walter, aka wambacher

btw: 
https://wambachers-osm.website/emergency/#zoom=14&lat=50.10973&lon=8.09932&layer=Openstreetmap.org%20Grayscale&overlays=FFTTTFFF 
trying to visualize the existing tagging. would like to get it simpler.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

@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 standard test conditions to measure 
nominal flow rate. In this sense flow_rate is more appropriate.

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 ones, I'm starting to think that the only 
way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
- hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. 
pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the 
information.
- suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and 
pump.
I would prefer to have only pressurized hydrants in emergency=fire_hydrant, but 
there are too many cases that can't be easily handled.
Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of 
water_source=pond.

[0] http://www.nwwsd.org/media/4591/AppendixB.pdf

Best regards,
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 than the flow of
a river (average value, not the maximum "capacity" of a river).
But this detail of vocabulary may not be very important.

about "pond will be deprecated"
>> Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
>> It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example if 
>> you have anyway 
>> a pump with you). Another day, another contributor will add additional 
>> information.
> And if we divide emergency=fire_hydrant from emergency=suction_point what 
> changes? Nothing.
The big difference is if you don't have a pump, TODAY you can
avoid all hydrants that have no tag type/pressure/water_source.

Your proposal changes the current meaning since you want
that hydrant mean "always with pressure"

10% of hydrants in France don't have a type/pressure/water_source
tag and the current meaning is "maybe with pressure, maybe not"
a lot of them are classified as pressure=suction, the most common
value in France, this shows that this is a common case.
If you decide tomorrow to change their meaning, error rate
with "unknown pressure" will be significant. This is a regression.

I thing it is important :
- either to have a solution for those 10%
- either to remove the "meaning change" from the proposal
and talk this point separately to have a unanimous consensus
with the current proposal.
The sentence "pond will be deprecated" could be removed or change
to "fire_hydrant=pond is controversial, some believe it is needed
to not spit hydrant depending on the pressure, some believe
that it should be replaced by emergency=suction_point.
In both case, add water_source=pond."
What do you think of this ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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:intensity and then rating:water can be introduced for
fire_hydrants or whatever water feature.

I definetly think a universal tag is the best solution, whatever flow_rate
or rating:water.

All the best

François



*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-08-28 0:18 GMT+02:00 Viking :

> 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 synonymous of "volume", not
> "volume/time". It is suitable for a park, for a tank, for a pond. Instead
> the term "Flow capacity" is sometimes used for streams or pipelines, but I
> think that the best words are "flow rate": is there a native Englishman
> that can confirm this? In any case, I would use the word "flow", because
> it's more intuitive for non British users.
> For hydrants or suction point we need to have l/min or gpm: it is
> necessary for quick calculations when we refill the water tank. So if we
> use the universal tag flow_capacity=* (or flow_rate=*) the international
> standard unit will be m3/s, that is suitable for river, streams, etc., but
> we'll need to specify each time l/min or gpm for hydrants and suction
> points.
> Do you think that it is better to use a universal tag (flow_capacity=* or
> flow_rate=*) and specify each time the unit of measure rather than have a
> hydrant specific tag (fire_hydrant:flow_capacity=* or
> fire_hydrant:flow_rate=*) with its own default unit (l/min)?
>
> > Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
> > It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example
> if you have anyway a pump with you).
> > Another day, another contributor will add additional information.
> And if we divide emergency=fire_hydrant from emergency=suction_point what
> changes? Nothing.
> If a contributor (in some cases and in some countries) can't distinguish
> an hydrant from a suction point he will randomly use one tag or the other
> (more probably emergency=fire_hydrant).
> BUT, if you have anyway a pump with you, even if the tag is incorrect, you
> can take water from that point.
> And eventually another day, another contributor will fix the tag.
> The problem is not which way we choose to tag these objects, but the
> problem is in the real world where different object are not visually
> distinguishable by an inexperienced mapper.
>
> I will read other comments in the next days.
> Best regards,
> Alberto
>
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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
still use in the U.S. and using a default flow_rate in cubic
meters/second (or per minute) or alternatively cubic centimeters/sec
(cc/sec).

default to SI units is fine. local units should be permissable.

richard



The problem with gallons .. there are 2 of them!

US and UK ... about 0.5 litres difference between them ..the US one is 
smaller.


So if someone says 'gallons' .. you have to look at where they are (and 
hopefully they are not a tourist/immigrant).




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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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 flow_rate in cubic
> meters/second (or per minute) or alternatively cubic centimeters/sec
> (cc/sec). 

default to SI units is fine. local units should be permissable.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Dave Swarthout]

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)
or alternatively cubic centimeters/sec (cc/sec).

Cheers,
Dave

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Viking  wrote:

> 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 synonymous of "volume", not
> "volume/time". It is suitable for a park, for a tank, for a pond. Instead
> the term "Flow capacity" is sometimes used for streams or pipelines, but I
> think that the best words are "flow rate": is there a native Englishman
> that can confirm this? In any case, I would use the word "flow", because
> it's more intuitive for non British users.
> For hydrants or suction point we need to have l/min or gpm: it is
> necessary for quick calculations when we refill the water tank. So if we
> use the universal tag flow_capacity=* (or flow_rate=*) the international
> standard unit will be m3/s, that is suitable for river, streams, etc., but
> we'll need to specify each time l/min or gpm for hydrants and suction
> points.
> Do you think that it is better to use a universal tag (flow_capacity=* or
> flow_rate=*) and specify each time the unit of measure rather than have a
> hydrant specific tag (fire_hydrant:flow_capacity=* or
> fire_hydrant:flow_rate=*) with its own default unit (l/min)?
>
> > Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
> > It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example
> if you have anyway a pump with you).
> > Another day, another contributor will add additional information.
> And if we divide emergency=fire_hydrant from emergency=suction_point what
> changes? Nothing.
> If a contributor (in some cases and in some countries) can't distinguish
> an hydrant from a suction point he will randomly use one tag or the other
> (more probably emergency=fire_hydrant).
> BUT, if you have anyway a pump with you, even if the tag is incorrect, you
> can take water from that point.
> And eventually another day, another contributor will fix the tag.
> The problem is not which way we choose to tag these objects, but the
> problem is in the real world where different object are not visually
> distinguishable by an inexperienced mapper.
>
> I will read other comments in the next days.
> Best regards,
> Alberto
>
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

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 synonymous of "volume", not "volume/time". 
It is suitable for a park, for a tank, for a pond. Instead the term "Flow 
capacity" is sometimes used for streams or pipelines, but I think that the best 
words are "flow rate": is there a native Englishman that can confirm this? In 
any case, I would use the word "flow", because it's more intuitive for non 
British users.
For hydrants or suction point we need to have l/min or gpm: it is necessary for 
quick calculations when we refill the water tank. So if we use the universal 
tag flow_capacity=* (or flow_rate=*) the international standard unit will be 
m3/s, that is suitable for river, streams, etc., but we'll need to specify each 
time l/min or gpm for hydrants and suction points.
Do you think that it is better to use a universal tag (flow_capacity=* or 
flow_rate=*) and specify each time the unit of measure rather than have a 
hydrant specific tag (fire_hydrant:flow_capacity=* or  
fire_hydrant:flow_rate=*) with its own default unit (l/min)?

> Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
> It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example if you 
> have anyway a pump with you).
> Another day, another contributor will add additional information.
And if we divide emergency=fire_hydrant from emergency=suction_point what 
changes? Nothing.
If a contributor (in some cases and in some countries) can't distinguish an 
hydrant from a suction point he will randomly use one tag or the other  (more 
probably emergency=fire_hydrant).
BUT, if you have anyway a pump with you, even if the tag is incorrect, you can 
take water from that point.
And eventually another day, another contributor will fix the tag.
The problem is not which way we choose to tag these objects, but the problem is 
in the real world where different object are not visually distinguishable by an 
inexperienced mapper.

I will read other comments in the next days.
Best regards,
Alberto



---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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 the same as a pipe for water
supply from
a pond or stream.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Colin Smale]

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. 
> 
> 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 (actually the 
> German word for it) with proper signs. 
> 
> suction point translates more accurately to "Absaugstelle", which doesn't 
> necessarily mean "dry hydrant", but might be maybe the same in some cases 
> (not sure). I guess it's more generic in meaning. You can't rely on 
> dictionaries because they tend to give translations that are only in some 
> cases /context correct, but don't work in others/are not 1:1 relations in 
> every sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin 
> 
> -
> 
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
___
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] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 to "Absaugstelle", which doesn't 
> necessarily mean "dry hydrant", but might be maybe the same in some cases 
> (not sure).

It isn't a word-only problem. The example of François shows that we can 
meet an object "which delivers water to fight fire" without being able 
to differentiate between with pressure <> without pressure.

Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example 
if you have anyway a pump with you).
Another day, another contributor will add additional information.

If type=pond is depreciated in favor of a exclusive use of suction, what 
must use the 1st contributor when a meet François's object ?
emergency=fire_hydrant_or_suction_point + fixme=emergency depending on 
the pressure ?
This is not a progress.
The object becomes unusable as long as the doubt is not removed.
Or worse the contributor will choose one of the 2 tag. error rate 50%.

Given the lack of agreement on this point, I would like this sentence 
not to be part of the proposal. :
"fire_hydrant:type=pond will be deprecated because it will be replaced 
by emergency=suction_point"
If necessary, it could be replaced by "type=pond is controversial. some 
think it solves a problem on the ground, others think that it is 
necessary to use exclusively suction_point"
This do not prevent to use water_source and other tag which reduces the 
useless differences between both emergency tag.
Nothing prevents to make another proposal to specifically deal with this 
point but right now the disagreement seems important without a perfect 
solution.
It would be fair to not include a controversial point among the other 
unanimous points.
This split would make it easy to vote the many other quality 
improvements of the proposition that meet the unanimity.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Philip Barnes]

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 (actually
>the German word for it) with proper signs. 
>
>
>suction point translates more accurately to "Absaugstelle", which
>doesn't necessarily mean "dry hydrant", but might be maybe the same in
>some cases (not sure). I guess it's more generic in meaning. You can't
>rely on dictionaries because they tend to give translations that are
>only in some cases /context correct, but don't work in others/are not
>1:1 relations in every sense.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin 
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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't 
necessarily mean "dry hydrant", but might be maybe the same in some cases (not 
sure). I guess it's more generic in meaning. You can't rely on dictionaries 
because they tend to give translations that are only in some cases /context 
correct, but don't work in others/are not 1:1 relations in every sense.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 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 these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually
>the German word for it) with proper signs. 
>normal practice in these cases is to fall back on british practice.
>i have no idea what that might be.
>
>richard
>
>-- 
>rwe...@averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>___
>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] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 meters.
Difference would be it has no dimension.

capacity=* goes far beyond car parks lots with school, hospital, hotels and
even benches capacity.
Pipeline wiki page should be improved to default capacity in m3/s instead
of free text although giving unit in values isn't an issue
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units


> fire_hydrant:flow_capacity has over 6,000 uses ... distribution is mostly
> Europe .. no wiki page as yet, needs one to state default units as most of
> the values have no units, only some have l/min etc.
>

Most values has no unit means wiki default applies.
Instead of using flow_capacity, what if wiki page for fire_hydrant defaults
capacity in m3/s ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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
     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 tag. If you must, possibly use the tag
"description=*"?


The problem is on GPS side.
Viking explained the GPS he use only take POI with a name field 
without additional attributes.
Then it's harder to distinguish presurized hydrants vs suction points 
but not impossible : concatenate water_source with ref or arbitrary 
label (hydrants don't usually have names) and you're done.


Rendering/use issue.
All the maps will use the name tag to display that information .. even 
if they don't want it?


If Viking needs a POI file derived from OSM then that derivation can 
combine the description into the name value.




Pipe lines would also have a flow_capacity, as would canals, drains.
Humm pipeline uses the tag capacity ... I don't think that is a
good fit with present OSM use of that tag.

In the interests of having a more universally applied tag I'd
rather have a tag "flow_capacity=*" as a property tag much like
length, height etc.


+1 on idea

Capacity is used several hunder thousand times but flow_capacity never 
(fire_hydrant:flow_capacity about 7k).
Since capacity definition is "The tag describes the capacity a 
facility is suitable for", it can fit for pipelines, hydrant, canals, 
drains... in m3/s or m3/h, can't you ?




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.


fire_hydrant:flow_capacity has over 6,000 uses ... distribution is 
mostly Europe .. no wiki page as yet, needs one to state default units 
as most of the values have no units, only some have l/min etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 past, as you do not use
>> the name of the osm tag anyway
>>
>
> Do not use the name tag. If you must, possibly use the tag "description=*"?
>

Te problem is on GPS side.
Viking explained the GPS he use only take POI with a name field without
additional attributes.
Then it's harder to distinguish presurized hydrants vs suction points but
not impossible : concatenate water_source with ref or arbitrary label
(hydrants don't usually have names) and you're done.


>
> Pipe lines would also have a flow_capacity, as would canals, drains.
> Humm pipeline uses the tag capacity ... I don't think that is a good fit
> with present OSM use of that tag.
>
> In the interests of having a more universally applied tag I'd rather have
> a tag "flow_capacity=*" as a property tag much like length, height etc.


+1 on idea

Capacity is used several hunder thousand times but flow_capacity never
(fire_hydrant:flow_capacity about 7k).
Since capacity definition is "The tag describes the capacity a facility is
suitable for", it can fit for pipelines, hydrant, canals, drains... in m3/s
or m3/h, can't you ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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 tag. If you must, possibly use the tag "description=*"?




For sake of simplicity, fire_hydrant: and suction_point namespaces
should be avoided as done for fire_hydrant:position

fire_hydrant:flow_capacity could also just be the already existing key
flow_capacity


Pipe lines would also have a flow_capacity, as would canals, drains.
Humm pipeline uses the tag capacity ... I don't think that is a good fit with 
present OSM use of that tag.

In the interests of having a more universally applied tag I'd rather have a tag 
"flow_capacity=*" as a property tag much like length, height etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

> 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 namespaces 
> should be avoided as done for fire_hydrant:position

fire_hydrant:flow_capacity could also just be the already existing key 
flow_capacity
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 I prefer this distinction in the primary
> key.
> First of all in many cases you don't know the pressure, but you know only
> that it's a pressurized hydrant. You should use something like
> fire_hydrant:pressure=positive that adds complexity and it's error prone
> for an inexperienced mapper.
>

I agree with you for fire_hydrant:pressure=positive complexity.
water_source=mains or water_source=network may be enough

The point isn't to know exact pressure, only source is a concern for us.


> Then, for my fire departement, I've extracted hydrants data from OSM, I've
> uploaded it on some old and new GPS and I've sent it on my colleagues
> smartphones.
> The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants
> attributes to GPS is to put them in waypoints names. But waypoints names
> lenght is limited in GPS, so it's likely that someone transferring data
> will loose the fire_hydrant:pressure information.
> Then it's simpler to look for emergency=fire_hydrant or
> emergency=suction_point than look for emergency=fire_hydrant +
> fire_hydrant:pressure=positive or emergency=fire_hydrant +
> fire_hydrant:pressure=suction.
> In conclusion grouping different items under the same primary key and,
> even worse, grouping all water sources under emergency=water_source, adds a
> not necessary complexity in data managament.
> Simpler is always better. In this case it is simpler to keep
> emergency=fire_hydrant for pressurized hydrants and emergency=suction_point
> for all other non pressurized water sources.
>

I'll follow you on tagging simplicity and stop argue on grouping under
emergency=water_supply.

If we take this way, it may be really good to add water_source on both
emergency=fire_hydrant and emergency=suction_point.
Even if an hydrant is always pressurized, it can be fed by a private water
grid. Then we have at least 2 sources : mains and private_network (or
similar)

For sake of simplicity, fire_hydrant: and suction_point namespaces should
be avoided as done for fire_hydrant:position
Since all hydrants will have emergency=fire_hydrant, some keys can be
lightened
fire_hydrant:wrench => wrench (and automatically make it available for
suction_points also)
fire_hydrant:type or suction_point:type => fire_hydrant or suction_point

To follow Moritz logic for pillars, pillar=dry_barrel or wet_barrel is
enough


> For suction point another proposal of refinement is needed.
>

Not sure on this point if grouping under a single emergency=* value is
abandoned.
Both features have keys in common.


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> 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 controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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
> (underground, wall, pillar...) can evaluate fh:type tag. When somebody
> wants to know it in more detail he can check for pillar:type.
this is basically what my old proposal did.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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:type tag. When somebody wants to know it in 
more detail he can check for pillar:type.


Moritz
-- 
von unterwegs...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

>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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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 havereflective:colour 
=* 



This does not stipulate if it is the bonnet or cap or both?

Might be better as a single additional tag?

bonnet:reflective=yes/no

cap:reflective=yes/no

Or if the object has more than one colour and only one, or more, colour/s are 
reflective

bonnet:red:reflective=yes

cap:white;yellow:reflective=yes

?

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> 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.
> it would be better to use check_date (or check:date to keep date suffix)

+1 for check_date.
Fixed.

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 I prefer this distinction in the primary key.
First of all in many cases you don't know the pressure, but you know only that 
it's a pressurized hydrant. You should use something like 
fire_hydrant:pressure=positive that adds complexity and it's error prone for an 
inexperienced mapper.
Then, for my fire departement, I've extracted hydrants data from OSM, I've 
uploaded it on some old and new GPS and I've sent it on my colleagues 
smartphones.
The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants attributes to 
GPS is to put them in waypoints names. But waypoints names lenght is limited in 
GPS, so it's likely that someone transferring data will loose the 
fire_hydrant:pressure information.
Then it's simpler to look for emergency=fire_hydrant or emergency=suction_point 
than look for emergency=fire_hydrant + fire_hydrant:pressure=positive or 
emergency=fire_hydrant + fire_hydrant:pressure=suction.
In conclusion grouping different items under the same primary key and, even 
worse, grouping all water sources under emergency=water_source, adds a not 
necessary complexity in data managament.
Simpler is always better. In this case it is simpler to keep 
emergency=fire_hydrant for pressurized hydrants and emergency=suction_point for 
all other non pressurized water sources.

For suction point another proposal of refinement is needed.

Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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 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. 
normal practice in these cases is to fall back on british practice.
i have no idea what that might be.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually the 
German word for it) with proper signs. 

Moritz

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 have less impact on existing objects.
Eventual move from emergency=fire_hydrant / emergency=suction_point / ...
to emergency=water_supply can be a long term evolution.

Is there anyone from OSMHydrant project in this thread?
As a good render to find hydrants they may have interesting feedbacks
regarding our discussion


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 a survey (someone was there) not a functional 
check.
it would be better to use check_date (or check:date to keep date suffix)

maybe split the proposal in 2 :

a part with all stuff where it seems to have a consensus
- adding 3 new values for fire_hydrant:type
- adding new keys : wrench class flow_capacity water_source colour 
couplings_type couplings_size wrench
- Migration from fire_hydrant:position=* to location
- Migration from in_service=yes/no to disused:emergency=fire_hydrant

another part with
depreciating fire_hydrant:type=pond <> pressure=0 <> emergency=water_source
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Kevin Kenny]

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 from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
>> when it's not in use for the usual reasons.
>
>
> That would officially be called and signed a 'Static Water Supply' in
> Australia.

A dry hydrant is a standing pipe with a coupling for a hard suction
hose that is sourced from an unpressurized water source.

A static water source is any source that's not under pressure, such as
lakes, ponds, streams and swimming pools. In addition to requiring a
hard suction hose, drafting from a natural static source generally
requires floats, intake strainers, ropes and braces.

Most static water sources are natural sources of standing water, and
only a few are equipped with dry hydrants.

There are also dry hydrants that are fed from standpipes somewhere
else, by hooking up a fire pumper at the standpipe. They are often use
where the protected area is higher than the municipal source can lift,
or high enough to cavitate the water when pumping.

Neither of these should be confused with a 'dry barrel' hydrant, where
the valve is in the ground below the frost line and the riser is
equipped with a drain so that it will not freeze. The case that
Richard is describing is a gravity-fed dry barrel hydrant.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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 fire
hydrant at all.

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 from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
when it's not in use for the usual reasons.


That would officially be called and signed a 'Static Water Supply' in Australia.

See
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=319
https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/fire-apparatus/articles/1913867-Fire-apparatus-pumping-static-water-sources/

Note that some (most in Australia) do not have supply pipes/hydrants .. the 
fire service bring there own.
The helicopters just hover over the source while their bucket or suction hose 
enters the source.
There are a fair few of the SWS signs that have been installed to aid fire 
fighters particularly in areas close to the bush.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

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 suction points 
but in a large amount of other places.

This will be convenient because anyone looking for fire_hydrant will know what 
does it look like and if there are
connectors or not And anyone looking for suction_points will know if he/she 
have to bring appropriate stuff to get water.

This would be great to find a consensus on this point as to make the fire 
hydrant proposal better :)

All the best

François

We need to know if the common accepted definition of suction point is this:

Suction points aren't devices like hydrants but are preferred places to pump 
water from a not pressurized water source (river, pond, well).
Hydrant is an equipment/device and suction point is a place where you may or 
not find a hydrant.
In this case the hydrant will be tagged emergency=fire_hydrant + 
fire_hydrant:pressure=0.

Does the community agree?


In Australia these 'suction points' are called 'Static Water Supply'
- swimming pools, rain water tanks even air conditioning water cooling systems 
(if large enough) are used.

See https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=319


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 case, even if we accept to use emergency=fire_hydrant +
> fire_hydrant:pressure=0, because he will not add the pressure subkey. And
> definitely, any solution we choose, any map with wrong data will give wrong
> information to firefighters. For these cases, only an expert mapper can fix
> wrong tags, case by case.
>

The lack of "pressure" key won't be bad data. Only a lack.
This can be warned in documentation or renders "Beware of this undocumented
hydrant, you may need a pump to get water"
QA tools can encourage mappers to get this information "This water supply
isn't properly described, go look for pressure or source"


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 only 2, but I don't like to make the distinguish in the "primary" key.
This may be a key with a specific key, like water_source which is used in
the proposal
As a firefighter you'll be able to avoid water_source=pond, river or
whatever which isn't pressurized if you didn't bring a pump.


>
>> Pressurized or not, there are connectorized pipes wich allow firefighters
>> to get water which have a given appearance on ground (barrel, underground,
>> pipe...)
>> Even if it's not always pressurized, the design of such things is done as
>> to allow the water to flow under pressure (gravity, pumped or whatever)
>> and
>> that's why I like to think "dry" and "pressurized" "hydrants" are all
>> members of the same set of feature.
>>
>
> Then we should not call it hydrant, because the hydrant (by the meaning of
> the word) is something connected
> to the water main ;)
>

Why not :)
But as a not English native I won't argue on hydrant sense.
It would be great to have a common term grouping all water supplies
emergency=water_supply ?

Many people will ask why they should map it as emergency=suction_point
whereas there is a similar red barrel 20m away mapped as
emergency=fire_hydrant


>
> Otherwise, you have ponds, wells, which are open field water sources
>>
>
> 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.
>

Yes, and this source can simply be given with water_source key
And ponds, wells, tanks can be mapped independently

When I said suctions points were places, I assumed that it referred more to
the platform than to the pipe
But it's only my point of view.


>
> When I'm understanding you right, you propose to put dry hydrants into
> same category like real hydrants.
> Because the mappers can't distinguish between real and dry hydrants.
> But then the problem what to do with the other variants of suction points
> (e.g. wells) persists.
> Here in Germany there are wells which can look like dry hydrants. So the
> unexperienced mappers would put them
> also in the hydrants category, according to your above statement.
>

Then the well is different from the "hydrant". The mapper should put at
least 2 different features on the map.
With my previous example, I've put 2 features : the "hydrant" and the well
(or the reservoir, let's say it's a well for the example)
Here is the well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/516436569
And the "hydrant" inside the area (or next to):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4936126869



> This leads to no or little value of these information for the
> firefighters. When I have to decide where to get water
> for the fire engine, I try to avoid using wells, ponds, lakes in first
> place. Just because the hazzle to get water
> quickly is much bigger than just connecting the hose to the hydrant.
>

I agree for the low value for firefighters.
BUT, as mentioned in the Proposal Talk page: water intakes is a concern for
many people. Even fishermen can be interested by occasional water taking in
rivers or ponds.
That's why if OSM encourage mappers to map hydrants and sources, this will
be better if it's done widely.


>
> You mean you disagree on on using something like suction_point:source=*
> and suction_point:position=* to further describe
> the features of a given suction point/dry hydrant?
>
Yes
I prefer location=* to suction_point:position or fire_hydrant:position for
instance.


> How would you attach the additional attributes to such a
> dry_hydrant/suction point when you just have 2 categories for more then 2
> items to be distinguished?
>

I'm not sure to properly understand. Do you refer to the distinguish of
"dry" vs pressurized ?
water_source=* and other keys like that can help us, don't you ?


>
> But I agree that we will somehow end up improving the tagging of
> hydrants/dry hydrants and stuff ;)
>

That's nice, I'm sure too

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Eric H. Christensen]

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 look like a traditional
>fire
>> hydrant at all.
>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 from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
>when it's not in use for the usual reasons.
>
>richard
>
>-- 
>rwe...@averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Then that is a pressurized system and doesn't require drafting (there is 
gravity at work if the pond is elevated above the connection point).

The whole point of a dry hydrant is to make drafting easier. Drafting is the 
pulling of water up by use of a pump.  If the water is coming down then you 
don't need to pull the water and can do damage  to many water systems if you do.

Eric 

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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 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 from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
when it's not in use for the usual reasons.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Eric Christensen]

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 usage.

+1

> For the tag emergency=dry_hydrant, at this point I wouldn't introduce it, 
> because we already have emergency=suction_point that covers a wider range of 
> cases, as Moritz says.

+1

> Productivity can become flow_capacity, as it is for fire_hydrants.

+1


--Eric

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Richard Welty]

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 fires. See also fire hydrant
>
> According to this definition a dry hydrant is not a hydrant because of
> the lack of connection to the water main.
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.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

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 usage.

For the tag emergency=dry_hydrant, at this point I wouldn't introduce it, 
because we already have emergency=suction_point that covers a wider range of 
cases, as Moritz says.

Productivity can become flow_capacity, as it is for fire_hydrants.

The main problem now seems to be that in France dry hydrants and pressurized 
hydrants look the same and are not distinguishable by a normal mapper.
Anyway, personally I would prefer to include dry hydrants in suction points 
rather than in hydrants.
I'm near Moritz's point of view that emergency=fire_hydrants should be used 
only for presurized hydrants and all other not pressurized water sources should 
go in emergency=suction_point.

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 case, even if we accept to use emergency=fire_hydrant + 
fire_hydrant:pressure=0, because he will not add the pressure subkey. And 
definitely, any solution we choose, any map with wrong data will give wrong 
information to firefighters. For these cases, only an expert mapper can fix 
wrong tags, case by case.

I'm waiting for other opinions.
Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 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 fires. See also fire hydrant


According to this definition a dry hydrant is not a hydrant because of 
the lack of connection to the water main.


Regards
Moritz

[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hydrant

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Eric Christensen]

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 wikipedia use the word hydrant for both, maybe the "by the meaning of 
> the world" is that.
> A common tag for both + a subtag for pressurized or not isn't enough ?
> Or you like 2 tag for render and/or to avoid the need to check subtag ?
> 
> When I'm walking on a street and find "something that give water to be 
> used against fire" and I read "2 bars" on it, I have no way if it's 
> connected to a pressurized network or if it's a tank with a pump in it.
> I didn't even know it existed before reading it in this discussion.

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.

Many of the ones I'm used to look like this:

http://www.dof.virginia.gov/fire/dryhydrant/index.htm

There is no confusing this with a pressurized hydrant.

--Eric

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Eric Christensen]

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 convenient drafting point for getting water in
rural areas.  Where I used to work as a firefighter we had designated
water sources that we could use to supply tankers in the event of a
fire.  Many times it would be dangerous to get too close to the edge of
a pond with the fire engine or would require more suction hose to reach
to water than we would usually carry on the engine.  In those areas we
would install these dry hydrants.  Hook up to them with a short piece of
hard suction hose, pull a draft, and flow water.

I would suggest marking designated water sources as that: water sources.
 If they have a dry hydrant then all the better and that should be
mapped to make it easier to locate (especially at night).  But dry
hydrant or not, a pond, lake, canal, etc, that is suitable for fire
water source operations should be mapped as such.

Of course such ponds, lakes, canals, should be designated by the local
authority.

--Eric

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

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 meaning of 
the world" is that.
A common tag for both + a subtag for pressurized or not isn't enough ?
Or you like 2 tag for render and/or to avoid the need to check subtag ?

When I'm walking on a street and find "something that give water to be 
used against fire" and I read "2 bars" on it, I have no way if it's 
connected to a pressurized network or if it's a tank with a pump in it.
I didn't even know it existed before reading it in this discussion.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 emergency key.
This will lead to extra large and cluttered like
emergency=big_yellow_fire_hydrant and
emergency=small_cap_covering_underground_valve
It's really interesting both from mapper and consumer view to use 
several

keys to give pieces of information.


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)





Pressurized or not, there are connectorized pipes wich allow 
firefighters
to get water which have a given appearance on ground (barrel, 
underground,

pipe...)
Even if it's not always pressurized, the design of such things is done 
as
to allow the water to flow under pressure (gravity, pumped or whatever) 
and

that's why I like to think "dry" and "pressurized" "hydrants" are all
members of the same set of feature.


Then we should not call it hydrant, because the hydrant (by the meaning 
of the word) is something connected

to the water main ;)


Otherwise, you have ponds, wells, which are open field water sources


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.

When I'm understanding you right, you propose to put dry hydrants into 
same category like real hydrants.

Because the mappers can't distinguish between real and dry hydrants.
But then the problem what to do with the other variants of suction 
points (e.g. wells) persists.
Here in Germany there are wells which can look like dry hydrants. So the 
unexperienced mappers would put them

also in the hydrants category, according to your above statement.

This leads to no or little value of these information for the 
firefighters. When I have to decide where to get water
for the fire engine, I try to avoid using wells, ponds, lakes in first 
place. Just because the hazzle to get water

quickly is much bigger than just connecting the hose to the hydrant.



In a second time, i respectably disagree (without shortening the good 
work

done) to namespaces keys suction_point:, fire_hydrant: and so on...
In some cases they are redundant and don't ease the key name typing in
editors without pressets.
It may be great to don't encourage them, please.


You mean you disagree on on using something like suction_point:source=* 
and suction_point:position=* to further describe

the features of a given suction point/dry hydrant?

How would you attach the additional attributes to such a 
dry_hydrant/suction point when you just have 2 categories for more then 
2 items to be distinguished?



But I agree that we will somehow end up improving the tagging of 
hydrants/dry hydrants and stuff ;)


Cheers
Moritz

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[François Lacombe]

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 emergency key.
This will lead to extra large and cluttered like
emergency=big_yellow_fire_hydrant and
emergency=small_cap_covering_underground_valve
It's really interesting both from mapper and consumer view to use several
keys to give pieces of information.

In some countries, pressurized hydrants and dry points have the same shape,
only their colour change.
There is 100% chance a not knowledgable mapper will use
emergency=fire_hydrant instead of anything else.
This is a dry "hydrant" :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:French_hydrant_water_pond.jpg

Pressurized or not, there are connectorized pipes wich allow firefighters
to get water which have a given appearance on ground (barrel, underground,
pipe...)
Even if it's not always pressurized, the design of such things is done as
to allow the water to flow under pressure (gravity, pumped or whatever) and
that's why I like to think "dry" and "pressurized" "hydrants" are all
members of the same set of feature.
Otherwise, you have ponds, wells, which are open field water sources

In a second time, i respectably disagree (without shortening the good work
done) to namespaces keys suction_point:, fire_hydrant: and so on...
In some cases they are redundant and don't ease the key name typing in
editors without pressets.
It may be great to don't encourage them, please.

Let's keep up with looking for the best tagging

Cheers

François


*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-08-17 12:54 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> 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/firewise/operationWater/step3.htm
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant#Non-pressurized_.
> 28dry.29_hydrants
>
> //colin
>
> On 2017-08-17 12:32, Moritz wrote:
>
> 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
> suction point is no fire hydrant.
>
> The special case of commercial area where the owner is responsible for the
> hydrants and the hydrants are fed by
> pumps from ground water or by tanks were not discussed (as Viking81 wrote
> on the discussion pages of [1
> ]
> and [2
> 
> ]).
>
> As I am a firefighter by myself I think there is such thing, but I will
> figure out with the local fire department.
>
> We furthermore agreed that there is no need of my newly proposed tag
> emergency=fire_water_well as we can define
> the different types of suction points by adding appropriate tags for each
> type.
>
> 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
>
> I think you meant from a river. But yes I agree.
>
> emergency=fire_hydrant
> is a kind of device which may or not be present in places like suction
> points but in a large amount of other places.
>
>
> Nope.
> Fire hydrant: pressurized water from water main. Edge case of Vikings
> point not yet covered
>
> Hydrants that serve factories or shopping centers often are not connected
> to the public water main:
> instead they are connected to a private local water network fed by pumps
> that suck water from the ground.
> So these local water networks and their hydrants are fed by what we can
> call water wells.
>
>
> Suction points
>
> Points where the firefighter have to bring there own pump to suck water
> from pond, river or well.
> These suction points can be equipped with a pipe connected to the water or
> not. Something like this with pipe [4
> 
> ][5 ][6
> ].
>
> Or this [7
> 
> ][8
> 

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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 water).
Probably  some German guy started to tag dry hydrants as suction_points 
first so we are now have the term suction_points


Dry Hydrant seems a better fit

for what you are discussing, do you agree?

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/gallery/firewise/operationWater/step3.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant#Non-pressurized_.28dry.29_hydrants


From the language point of view I agree.
But from the technical point I would not call it dry hydrant.

Because: when there is the word hydrant in it there will be people 
saying
Hey a dry hydrant is a subset of a hydrant. Which it is not. Because 
there will
not be pressurized water from the dry hydrant and the dry hydrant is not 
connected to

the water main.

And what about the fire water wells, how would you tag them? They are no 
dry  hydrants.
And I got the feedback that another tag for fire water wells are not 
needed because we can enhance the

emergency=suction_point.

With the emergency=suction_point we can group every point where 
firefighters can obtain non pressurized water (ponds, rivers, wells)

by attaching a pump together.

Maybe suction_point is not the right word for it. But I have no better 
idea at the moment ;)
Dry hydrants would only cover a few of them and we would need another 
tag for them.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Colin Smale]

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/firewise/operationWater/step3.htm 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant#Non-pressurized_.28dry.29_hydrants


//colin 

On 2017-08-17 12:32, Moritz wrote:

> Hi François, hi Alberto,
> 
> we had in the past days a discussion on the german OSM forum[3 [1]] 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
> suction point is no fire hydrant.
> 
> The special case of commercial area where the owner is responsible for the 
> hydrants and the hydrants are fed by
> pumps from ground water or by tanks were not discussed (as Viking81 wrote on 
> the discussion pages of [1 [2]] and [2 [3]]).
> 
> As I am a firefighter by myself I think there is such thing, but I will 
> figure out with the local fire department.
> 
> We furthermore agreed that there is no need of my newly proposed tag 
> emergency=fire_water_well as we can define
> the different types of suction points by adding appropriate tags for each 
> type.
> 
>> 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
> I think you meant from a river. But yes I agree.
> 
>> emergency=fire_hydrant
>> is a kind of device which may or not be present in places like suction 
>> points but in a large amount of other places.
> 
> Nope.
> Fire hydrant: pressurized water from water main. Edge case of Vikings point 
> not yet covered
> 
> Hydrants that serve factories or shopping centers often are not connected to 
> the public water main:
> instead they are connected to a private local water network fed by pumps that 
> suck water from the ground.
> So these local water networks and their hydrants are fed by what we can call 
> water wells.

Suction points

Points where the firefighter have to bring there own pump to suck water
from pond, river or well.
These suction points can be equipped with a pipe connected to the water
or not. Something like this with pipe [4 [4]][5 [5]][6 [6]].

Or this [7 [7]][8 [8]] which also is a suction point, which can has a
sign. But basically it's just an somehow prepared point to have
easier access to the water itself.

> We need to know if the common accepted definition of suction point is this:
> 
> Suction points aren't devices like hydrants but are preferred places
> to pump water from a not pressurized water source (river, pond, well).

Yes

> Hydrant is an equipment/device and suction point is a place where you
 Yes

> may or not find a hydrant.
 No. I would not call a pipe at a suction point hydrant (lack of
pressured water).
At least from my German point of view, because here pipe and hydrant
look different.

> In this case the hydrant will be tagged emergency=fire_hydrant +
> fire_hydrant:pressure=0.

Nope, because then you have emergency=fire_hydrant but you have to bring
your own pump to get water. To be sure you have to
evaluate the fire_hydrant:pressure tag to determine what it is.

Here is the outcome of the discussion in the German forum:

# Suction point with pipe at a lake, river, stream etc (like [5 [5]])

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=water
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green

# Suction point at fire_water_pond (artificially created pond, otherwise
it is the above one)

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=fire_water_pond
suction_point:volume=# (volume in m^3)
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min,
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green

# Some prepared suction place at  lake, river, stream etc, but without a
pipe (like [8 [8]][7 [7]])

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:type=suction_place
suction_point:source=water

# Suction point at water_tank

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=water_tank
suction_point:volume=small|medium|large|# (small 75-150 m^3, small
150-300 m^3 und large>300 m^3; volume in m^3)
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min,
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green

# Normal fire water well

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:type=fire_water_well
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min,
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green
fire_water_well:type=suction
fire_water_well:water_level=# (distance water level-ground)

# Fire water well with integrated pump (electric or water driven pump)

e

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Moritz]

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

suction point is no fire hydrant.

The special case of commercial area where the owner is responsible for 
the hydrants and the hydrants are fed by
pumps from ground water or by tanks were not discussed (as Viking81 
wrote on the discussion pages of [1] and [2]).


As I am a firefighter by myself I think there is such thing, but I will 
figure out with the local fire department.


We furthermore agreed that there is no need of my newly proposed tag 
emergency=fire_water_well as we can define
the different types of suction points by adding appropriate tags for 
each type.


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

I think you meant from a river. But yes I agree.


emergency=fire_hydrant
is a kind of device which may or not be present in places like suction 
points but in a large amount of other places.


Nope.
Fire hydrant: pressurized water from water main. Edge case of Vikings 
point not yet covered


Hydrants that serve factories or shopping centers often are not 
connected to the public water main:
instead they are connected to a private local water network fed by 
pumps that suck water from the ground.
So these local water networks and their hydrants are fed by what we 
can call water wells.


Suction points

Points where the firefighter have to bring there own pump to suck water 
from pond, river or well.
These suction points can be equipped with a pipe connected to the water 
or not. Something like this with pipe [4][5][6].


Or this [7][8] which also is a suction point, which can has a sign. But 
basically it's just an somehow prepared point to have

easier access to the water itself.




We need to know if the common accepted definition of suction point is 
this:


Suction points aren't devices like hydrants but are preferred places
to pump water from a not pressurized water source (river, pond, well).


Yes


Hydrant is an equipment/device and suction point is a place where you

Yes


may or not find a hydrant.
No. I would not call a pipe at a suction point hydrant (lack of 
pressured water).
At least from my German point of view, because here pipe and hydrant 
look different.



In this case the hydrant will be tagged emergency=fire_hydrant +
fire_hydrant:pressure=0.


Nope, because then you have emergency=fire_hydrant but you have to bring 
your own pump to get water. To be sure you have to

evaluate the fire_hydrant:pressure tag to determine what it is.


Here is the outcome of the discussion in the German forum:


# Suction point with pipe at a lake, river, stream etc (like [5])

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=water
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green


# Suction point at fire_water_pond (artificially created pond, otherwise 
it is the above one)


emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=fire_water_pond
suction_point:volume=# (volume in m^3)
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min, 
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)

suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green

# Some prepared suction place at  lake, river, stream etc, but without a 
pipe (like [8][7])


emergency=suction_point
suction_point:type=suction_place
suction_point:source=water

# Suction point at water_tank

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:source=water_tank
suction_point:volume=small|medium|large|# (small 75–150 m^3, small 
150–300 m^3 und large>300 m^3; volume in m^3)
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min, 
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)

suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green


# Normal fire water well

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:type=fire_water_well
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min, 
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)

suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green
fire_water_well:type=suction
fire_water_well:water_level=# (distance water level-ground)

# Fire water well with integrated pump (electric or water driven pump)

emergency=suction_point
suction_point:type=fire_water_well
suction_point:position=lane|parking_lot|sidewalk|green
suction_point:productivity=small|medium|large|#  (small: 400-800l/min, 
medium: 800-1600l/min, large: 1600+ l/min; l/min)

fire_water_well:type=bilge_pump|electric_pump

With this tagging scheme there are still some issues:

For productivity tag I just copied from the German standards.

In case of a water_tank the volume belongs technically to the water_tank 
itself
but not to the suction point. But I think it is more convenient because 
as water

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

>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 of other places.
>
>This will be convenient because anyone looking for fire_hydrant will know what 
>does it look like and if there are
>connectors or not And anyone looking for suction_points will know if he/she 
>have to bring appropriate stuff to get water.
>
>This would be great to find a consensus on this point as to make the fire 
>hydrant proposal better :)
>
>All the best
>
>François

We need to know if the common accepted definition of suction point is this:

Suction points aren't devices like hydrants but are preferred places to pump 
water from a not pressurized water source (river, pond, well).
Hydrant is an equipment/device and suction point is a place where you may or 
not find a hydrant.
In this case the hydrant will be tagged emergency=fire_hydrant + 
fire_hydrant:pressure=0.

Does the community agree?
Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Viking]

> 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


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Richard Welty]

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 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 of what work will remain once
> the proposal accepted.
>
> I've also added a few comments on the Talk page
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> *François Lacombe*
>
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com 
> @InfosReseaux 
>
> 2017-07-28 15:39 GMT+02:00 Viking  >:
>
> 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.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 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

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 of what work will remain once the proposal
accepted.

I've also added a few comments on the Talk page

All the best

François

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-07-28 15:39 GMT+02:00 Viking :

> 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.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
>
>
> ___
> 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] fire hydrants

[Viking]

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.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


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Viking]

> * 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, somebody can tag fire_hydrant:couplings=yes or
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2 for exemple.
> Sata will be of lower quality
> if you want to avoid a generic subname :type, I think that should be 
> fire_hydrant:couplings_type the same with for fire_hydrant:couplings_size

What do other mappers think about this? Is fire_hydrant:couplings_type or 
fire_hydrant:couplings:type better? And the same question for size.

Alberto




---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

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
> > benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints)
> With fire_hydrant:couplings, you have to guess what this means.

Without reading the wiki, somebody can tag fire_hydrant:couplings=yes or
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2 for exemple.
> Sata will be of lower quality
>

Hi Marc, I got your point
I'd say it's a matter of tags, presets, QA, guidance, not only of this
particular proposal
Even if contributors will know it's about the type of coupling, they will
defintely have to look at wiki to know which value is recommended. Define
precise presets in editors is a good start.

Such problems don't appear with substation=*, pipeline=*, waterway=*...


> if you want to avoid a generic subname :type, I think that should be
> fire_hydrant:couplings_type
> the same with for fire_hydrant:couplings_size
>

Why not for fire_hydrant:coupling_type
The main goal is to avoid supplementary namespaces

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[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 
> benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints)
With fire_hydrant:couplings, you have to guess what this means.
Without reading the wiki, somebody can tag fire_hydrant:couplings=yes or 
fire_hydrant:couplings=2 for exemple.
Sata will be of lower quality
if you want to avoid a generic subname :type, I think that should be
fire_hydrant:couplings_type
the same with for fire_hydrant:couplings_size

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

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 I or would you add an example subsection with pictures giving at
least the different situations depicted with fire_hydrant:type key ?

The last point will make the proposal easier to understand and then to vote


All the best

Francois



*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-06-27 23:37 GMT+02:00 Viking :

> 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
>
>
> ___
> 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] fire hydrants

[Viking]

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


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[viking81]

>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

>:type subkeys aren't so great, and fire_hydrant:coupling:type>can only be 
>fire_hydrant:coupling (or fire_hydrant:coupling_type>to get more verbosity as 
>said above)
>The same for fire_hydrant:type, can't we use fire_hydrant only>to give the 
>delivery mechanism ?
>The water supply part goes into water_source=*.
I don't know about this point.

>fire_hydrant:position also exists and it's definitely not a concept
>specific to fire hydrants.
>position=* or at least location=* can be used.
+1 I would use location=*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

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 disused=yes ?

:type subkeys aren't so great, and fire_hydrant:coupling:type can only be
fire_hydrant:coupling (or fire_hydrant:coupling_type to get more verbosity
as said above)
The same for fire_hydrant:type, can't we use fire_hydrant only to give the
delivery mechanism ?
The water supply part goes into water_source=*.

fire_hydrant:position also exists and it's definitely not a concept
specific to fire hydrants.
position=* or at least location=* can be used.

I would agree it's a lot about semantics, but that's important questions to
prevent errors or ease adoption of proposed keys IMHO.


All the best

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-06-18 9:33 GMT+02:00 Robert Koch :

> 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 this would be then:
>
> fire_hydrant:type=pipe
> fire_hydrant:pressure=suction
>
> Is this right? In German one would translate pipe as "Ansaugrohr".
>
> [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/
> Dry_hydrant.jpg/150px-Dry_hydrant.jpg taken from [2]
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant#Types
> On 2017-06-17 21:51, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> 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 appearance from our usual dry barrel design and carry
> signs warning that they must be pumped out after use.  I tagged them
> "pillar" because I honestly don't know what they are.
>
> Around the US, virtually universally, wet barrels have individual shutoff
> valves for each coupling while dry barrels have a single shutoff in the
> center of the bonnet. You have to get pretty far south for wet barrels to
> be practicable, since they'd burst in a hard winter.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Robert Koch]

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 this would be then:

> fire_hydrant:type=pipe
> fire_hydrant:pressure=suction
Is this right? In German one would translate pipe as "Ansaugrohr".

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Dry_hydrant.jpg/150px-Dry_hydrant.jpg
taken from [2]
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant#Types

On 2017-06-17 21:51, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 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 appearance from our usual dry barrel design and
> carry signs warning that they must be pumped out after use.  I tagged
> them "pillar" because I honestly don't know what they are.
>
> Around the US, virtually universally, wet barrels have individual
> shutoff valves for each coupling while dry barrels have a single
> shutoff in the center of the bonnet. You have to get pretty far south
> for wet barrels to be practicable, since they'd burst in a hard winter. 
>
>
> ___
> 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] fire hydrants

[Kevin Kenny]

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 appearance from our usual dry barrel design and carry
signs warning that they must be pumped out after use.  I tagged them
"pillar" because I honestly don't know what they are.

Around the US, virtually universally, wet barrels have individual shutoff
valves for each coupling while dry barrels have a single shutoff in the
center of the bonnet. You have to get pretty far south for wet barrels to
be practicable, since they'd burst in a hard winter.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Robert Koch]

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 on the same page as Alberto: I don't see any
advantage of having just a count. As a result I'd recommend removing
"fire_hydrant:count=#" from the wiki page.

If we gonna change the couplings tag naming, we should adapt:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dry_riser_inlet

The fire_hydrant:type values without "pond" are still unclear to me: How
would I tag this one [3]
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?


[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions
[2]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units#Explicit_specifications
[3]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Dry_hydrant.jpg/150px-Dry_hydrant.jpg
taken from [4]
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant#Types


On 2017-06-16 19:42, Viking wrote:
>> 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 -> fire_hydrant:coupling:type
>> fire_hydrant:couplings -> fire_hydrant:couplings:size
> Then couplings, plural:
> fire_hydrant:couplings:size = 45;45;70 / ...
> fire_hydrant:couplings:type = UNI / Storz / ...
>
>> for people unable to recognize coupling diameters, is it useful to tag 
>> their count ? Or this information has no utility ?
> Well, I think that inserting only the number of couplings would complicate 
> the tagging scheme and would have a very little utility. I wouldn't do that.
>
> Alberto
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] fire hydrants

[Viking]

> 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 -> fire_hydrant:coupling:type
> fire_hydrant:couplings -> fire_hydrant:couplings:size

Then couplings, plural:
fire_hydrant:couplings:size = 45;45;70 / ...
fire_hydrant:couplings:type = UNI / Storz / ...

> for people unable to recognize coupling diameters, is it useful to tag 
> their count ? Or this information has no utility ?

Well, I think that inserting only the number of couplings would complicate the 
tagging scheme and would have a very little utility. I wouldn't do that.

Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[marc marc]

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 useful to tag 
their count ? Or this information has no utility ?

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Viking]

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 also put the proposal [1] to vote to make it official.
Thank you
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


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 the first variant, value and unit in the same tag. Having one value in 
two tags (number and unit) will only lead to potential problems (tags updated 
half). 


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Richard Welty]

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 couplings, create fire_hydrant:wrench_type and 
> fire_hydrant:wrench_size?
the physical characteristic of the hydrant is the nut/bolt head, not the
wrench.

square, triangular and pentagonal seem to be the three that are out there.
i'm not sure the size is that important, the wrenches in use seem to be
adjustable.

other tagging notes while we're at it:

i have been using a few other tags in the capital district of new york.

i separate out pond because water source is really a different thing
than the type of hydrant; i've seen dry_barrel pillar hydrants used
with a pond water source. and i generally distinguish between the two
major variations of the pillar hydrant.

fire_hydrant:type=dry_barrel
  wet_barrel
  pipe


fire_hydrant:water_source=main
  pond
  stream

if a locality is using the NFPA paint scheme it's possible to discern
the class of hydrant from the color of the caps. in the US an AA hydrant
has been flow tested and shown to have a very high flow rate. A, B & C are
successively weaker hydrants. firemen have been known to ignore C hydrants
and go find better ones to hook up to.

fire_hydrant:class=AA

out of service hydrants are supposed to clearly marked, either with
a tag on the outlets, or by covering them with a bag:

in_service=yes

the colors of the bonnet (top) and caps on the outlets may or may not
convey useful information. depends entirely on the jurisdiction.

colour:bonnet=white
colour:cap=red

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Robert Koch]

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 use a unit value to avoid
mistakes on this tag.

On 2017-06-15 15:09, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 6/15/17 8:38 AM, Robert Koch wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> On 2017-06-15 01:32, Richard Welty wrote:
>>> an american usage note:
>>>
>>> the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections
>>> and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes have existed in the
>>> past.
>> Which coupling-type do you use? NST
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_coupling#NST)?
> generally NST. the standardization effort in the US started immediately
> after the catastrophic 1904 Baltimore high rise fire. companies coming
> in from outside of the city found out that their equipement couldn't hook
> up.
>> If so one would describe this hydrant as:
>> fire_hydrant:coupling_type=NST
>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
>>
>> 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
> the norm in OSM usually looks like
>
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5in;2.5in;4.5in
>
> but maybe spelled out (inch vs in), i'd have to check.
>>> the wrench required for the bolt at the top of a dry hydrant may vary,
>>> pentagonal bolts are most common but others have been used.
>>> this is something that a mapper can observe, and something that
>>> a fireman cares about.
>> There is not yet a tag for this. In Austria a typical wrench looks like
>> this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/251745653405-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
>> The left side is used to open the bolt at the top, while the right side
>> can be used to open the cap of the hose couplings.
> i'd need to do some research. there are a variety of wrench types available,
> you can get an idea from the grainger website:
>
> https://www.grainger.com/category/spanner-and-hydrant-wrenches/fire-protection/safety/ecatalog/N-kyk?okey=hydrant+wrenches&mkey=hydrant+wrenches&refineSearchString=hydrant+wrenches&NLSCM=14&EndecaKeyword=hydrant+wrenches&searchBar=true&searchRedirect=hydrant+wrenches
>
> richard
>


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[marc marc]

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 fill the outlets count, not sure it's helpful.
therefore I prefer fire_hydrant:outlets:count + 
fire_hydrant:outlets:diameter
or fire_hydrant:couplings:count + diameter or sizetype.

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