Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
>Monday, September 7, 2020 4:23 AM -05:00 from Tobias Zwick >: > >The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear why >Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if >there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no. >Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear: >* 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise clear that >you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) -> drinking_water=yes >* 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated -> >drinking_water=no >But what about these? >* 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is drinkable >or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with toxic >substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine. >* 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is clear >from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right now, maybe >because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled water. >In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should be >drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he becomes >ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this case, he >would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with certainty >record is that there is no official information about it whatsoever. This is >useful because people searching for drinkable water would certainly prefer >water sources where it is positive that it is drinkable. >drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve this, but there >is also case 4. >In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual situation >on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations separately when >necessary. > >Cheers >Tobias >On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable, >>we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable. >> >>Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes) >>that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable >>sign"? >> >>drinking_water:signed=no ? >> >>___ >>Tagging mailing list >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>https://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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
In France, almost all water fountains not supplied from the residential water network are marked as "non potable" - indiscriminately of whether or not the water is drinking quality. No proper legislation exists which allows local authorities to intermittently test fountain water quality and be protected in case of an unlikely accident. On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I also thought about case where > water is commonly used as a drinking water > (for example camp site in mountains), > but there is no official testing or > official permission or any official oversight. > > 7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od o...@westnordost.de: > > The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear > why Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, > if there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no. > > Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear: > >- 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise >clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) -> >drinking_water=yes > > >- 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated >-> drinking_water=no > > But what about these? > >- 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is >drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with >toxic substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine. > > >- 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is >clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right >now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled > water. > > In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should > be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he > becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this > case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with > certainty record is that there is no official information about it > whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water > would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is > drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve > this, but there is also case 4. > > In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual > situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations > separately when necessary. > > > Cheers > Tobias > > On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable, > we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable. > > Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, > drinking_water=yes) > that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable > sign"? > > drinking_water:signed=no ? > > ___ > 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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
I also thought about case where water is commonly used as a drinking water (for example camp site in mountains), but there is no official testing or official permission or any official oversight. 7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od o...@westnordost.de: > > The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not > clear why Mateusz proposed to use the > drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already the tag > drinking_water=yes/no. > > > Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear: > > 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it isotherwise clear > that you can (drinking fountain constructed bymuncipality) -> > drinking_water=yes > 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it iscontaminated -> > drinking_water=no > > But what about these? > > 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether itis > drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might bepolluted > with toxic substances, especially if it is close to an(old) mine. > 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but itis > clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a goodexample > right now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shopwants to sell > bottled water. > > In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should > be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he > becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this > case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can > with certainty record is that there is no official information about it > whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water > would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is > drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would > solve this, but there is also case 4. > > > In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual > situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations > separately when necessary. > > > > > > > Cheers > Tobias > > > On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially >> drinkable, >> we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as notdrinkable. >> >> Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, >> drinking_water=yes) >> that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with"not >> drinkable sign"? >> >> drinking_water:signed=no ? >> >> ___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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear why Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no. Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear: * 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) -> drinking_water=yes * 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated -> drinking_water=no But what about these? * 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with toxic substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine. * 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled water. In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with certainty record is that there is no official information about it whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve this, but there is also case 4. In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations separately when necessary. Cheers Tobias On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable, we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable. Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes) that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable sign"? drinking_water:signed=no ? ___ 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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 01:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there > is strong > reason to believe that water is drinkable do I understand you correctly that in your interpretation drinking_water:legal=yes does NOT give strong reason to believe it is drinkable water? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
potable, and non potable, as in water lines separated in Florida. >Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:01 PM -05:00 from Philip Barnes >: > >On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: >> in the united states we say (portable) >I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB. > >Phil (trigpoint) > > > >___ >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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: > in the united states we say (portable) I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Sep 7, 2020, 00:52 by dieterdre...@gmail.com > > why not use > drinking_water=yes for these? > > Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that > there is strong > reason to believe that water is drinkable. > Sorry, but to me, drinking_water=yes suggests that yes, this water is drinkable! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
Sep 7, 2020, 00:52 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as >> including >> places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good >> (examples >> may include water fountains setup and maintained by city). >> > > > why not use > drinking_water=yes for these? > Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there is strong reason to believe that water is drinkable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
in the united states we say (portable) >Sunday, September 6, 2020 5:52 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer >: > > > >sent from a phone > >> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org > wrote: >> >> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as >> including >> places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good >> (examples >> may include water fountains setup and maintained by city). > >why not use >drinking_water=yes for these? > > >Cheers Martin >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as > including > places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good > (examples > may include water fountains setup and maintained by city). why not use drinking_water=yes for these? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as including places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good (examples may include water fountains setup and maintained by city). Sep 6, 2020, 20:39 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com: > if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s > suggestion: > drinking_water:legal=unsigned> > > +1 > > I also agree that this is a good suggestion > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 20:34, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> > >> > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown >> >> >> if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer >> Paul‘s suggestion: >> drinking_water:legal=unsigned >> ___ >> 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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s suggestion: drinking_water:legal=unsigned +1 I also agree that this is a good suggestion On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 20:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown > > > if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer > Paul‘s suggestion: > drinking_water:legal=unsigned > ___ > 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] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s suggestion: drinking_water:legal=unsigned ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water the water could be contaminated at the end of it’s journey (conduits), and not be suggested to drink although the general tap water quality of the area is good. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
Sep 6, 2020, 15:51 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> drinking_water:signed=no ? >> > > Ambiguous. It might have a sign that says nothing about the legality. > > drinking_water:legal=unsigned? > drinking_water:legal=unknown? > "drinking_water:legal=yes - The water is checked and approved by public authorities." may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > drinking_water:signed=no ? > Ambiguous. It might have a sign that says nothing about the legality. drinking_water:legal=unsigned? drinking_water:legal=unknown? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
