I was using the surface tag with water as an example of something you would not do. Surface is a tag for highways that tells if the highway surface is paved, unpaved, concrete, asphalt, whatever. You would never use the tags natural=water and surface=concrete together to tag a single object. They simply do not belong together. That's all I was meaning to say.
I have no problem with either answer actually; drinking_water=yes is fine, as is drinkable=yes. Someone else suggested potable=yes — that's fine too. Potable is an accepted English term which means drinkable. It's just a question of which you prefer and which works best with what is already in use in OSM. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Pottier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
