On 11/08/2011 09:19 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 9 November 2011 16:12, Bryce Nesbitt<[email protected]> wrote:
I've run into a curious use of a tag, to map the lack of a thing.
At least that's what I think mappers are doing.
One might normally expect a well, mountain hut, highway rest area, or toilet
to offer drinking water. Some mappers have placed:
drinking_water=no
To indicate the normal expectation is wrong.
All the signs round here have potable yes/no depending if it's safe to
drink or not.
Though potable=yes/no
describes a condition of a facility, not the lack of a facility.
I suppose
amenity=drinking_water
potable=no
Is a possibility, but then why call it drinking water? Why not then
have a more generic water tap which may or may not be potable:
amenity=water_tap
potable=yes
outlet=hose,fountain,faucet
volume=large (e.g. replaces
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwater_point )
Are there any other OSM conventions that indicate a /lack/ of a
facility? Maybe:
toilets=no
elevator=no
parking_garage=no
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
