Le 28/02/2014 01:23, Dave Swarthout a écrit :
@FrViPofm: I respectfully disagree. The drinking_water tag you refer
to is intended to indicate if drinking water is available at a certain
facility, not whether it is safe to drink. The values in your example
demonstrate this intention with "yes" and "no" comprising over 90% of
the values in existence.
As for the example of toilets with drinkable=yes, I agree that this
might be confusing. In the Wiki it would be helpful to recommend that
the drinkable tag be used with amenities like fountain, spring, etc.
Using it as you did above is ambiguous. For example, one would not use
the term surface=concrete to describe a waterway. Although nothing
forbids you to use it that way, except common sense, it is intended to
be used to describe the surface of a highway. I would hope
drinkability would follow that sort of usage
Dave.
I'm sorry but I have not understood the comparison with the surface tag.
Maybe I'm not enough skilful in English. Maybe I'm not clever enough.
I don't understand actually the meaning of waterway=* + surface=*.
But I have no problem with :
* amenity=fountain + drinking_water=catched_spring (maybe a better
translation is possible)
* amenity=fountain + drinking_water=not_surveyed (found two those days)
* amenity=shelter + drinking_water=rainwater_tank
* amenity=toilets + drinking_water=yes
"drinkable" and "drinking_water" are in the same semantic field, and are
so near that I think it is painful, for mappers, for data consumers, to
follow two tags.
So why maintaining two tags for saying the same thing : "here we can
find more or less drinkable/potable water in such condition", one tag
for "standalone" features, one for amenities ?
--
FrViPofm
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
