2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan <[email protected]>:
> I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following > the suggestion at > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water. > So this is fixed. > IMHO this doesn't fix it, because it now becomes incompatible to be tagged on a node with amenity=drinking_water. If the value shall remain a generic "water_tap" I'd stick to man_made to keep these compatible (see also man_made=water_well for instance, which is a similar feature somehow). Please note that amenity=drinking_water is highly introduced and used by many data consumers. This is an established tag that is used for almost seven years now. > > As for the clash with amenity=drinking_water: I see it, but I think there > is an advantage of having yet another tag: > > - amenity=drinking_water can be used as an attribute where the presence > thereof is non-obvious. E.g., for amenity=toilets. A water_tap is a > separate object, and a combination amenity=water_tap + drinkable=yes would > provide for a more specific mapping, where appropriate. > you can't use amenity=* as an attribute to something different with a tag amenity=* You could use drinkable=yes as an attribute, but this will be strange on toilets and is redundant on drinking_water. > > - The combination drinking_water + drinkable=no is indeed quite confusing > and has already caused a few discussions ( > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Rationale). > water_tap would help clarify. > yes, it is not only confusing, I'd call it "wrong". It shouts out for problems. Its similar to amenity=toilets with access=private (but worse, in short, it is contradictive). > > - amenity=drinking_water is not always a tap, it can be a fountain, a > well, a tap in a WC again; it can be used quite generally, without > additional thinking. > most cases I am aware of are indeed taps, because fountains are in the amenity namespace as well and will likely be tagged as such with drinkable=yes, a well would be man_made=water_well and could have amenity=drinking_water as combination (but there would be no need to clarify, it would already be clear that it is a well). > In some cases, there may exist uncertainty as to how to tag a feature, but > it's certain that potable water is available there. This tag fits well in > such situations. water_tap provides similar clarity when the object is > clearly there but the mapper doesn't know the type of water. > for my main usecase it will not be clear if water_tap applies. I am talking about structures like these: http://www.romainrima.it/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nasone.jpg that's basically a water_tap in a cast iron enclosure. Typically you'd need a special key to get access to the valve, but sometimes they are open. Some do not provide constant flow but require you to operated a turning valve or a push button. Also fountains typically do have some closing measures, typically not publicly accessible. > It may be difficult to imagine the abundance of such situations for the > West Europeans and Americans; but I come from Russia, where this situation > is very typical. I've met it in other developing countries as well. > Especially in the warm countries it is important not to confuse a source of > water with potable water. Quite a few people I know from developed > countries have suffered badly because they didn't realise there was a > difference. > I do agree here. You could add drinkable=unknown. My suggestion would be a generic tag for a water source that is either unknown to be drinkable to known not to be drinkable. (e.g. "raw_water_tap" or similar), could be combined with drinkable=unknown. > > - Map software often simply shows an icon without giving access to > additional attributes. In that case a user may have no chance of seeing > drinkable=no for drinking_water. The symbol for drinking_water — > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddrinking_water#Rendering > — is very clear, and the contradiction may lead to quite unfortunate > situations. > > yes, we should generally agree on not using A=B and C=D where those are not compatible. Subtagging is to used to refine something, not to change the meaning of other tags. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
