On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < [email protected]> wrote:
> > 2014-11-17 23:26 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan <[email protected]>: > >> What about introducing a name space: >> water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find >> a good English-language analogue, could someone help please?) >> > > > I'd make this "water:quality" and values potable | mineral | de:heilwasser > (or an English correspondent if available, or DE:heilwasser because it > refers to German legislation) > maybe also add "toxic" / "contaminated"(?), "non-potable" > not sure about "radioactive"? > If we agree for a change, I would like to make the new tags - as easy as possible to map: if only minimum information is available, it's still mappable; - as easy as possible to use: even if information is limited, it's still clear; programs would have something meaningful to show in any case; - as difficult as possible to make mistakes: no unclear information for users, tag logic clear for mappers. I see hierarchy and encapsulation of tags as the means to achieve these three goals. That's why I also would like to avoid going "outside" the tag by using water:* and stick to water_source:* > >> water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown >> > > > in analogy: "water:effervescent" (or ~:sparkling) > I don't mind using the word "effervescent"; however: is there any recommendation that we should use as "simple" words as possible, to achieve the above goals 1 and 3? I know this for scientific papers and am trying to stick to it in all inherently international situations. > > >> water_source:nonpotable=compromised | designated >> > > > could maybe be integrated in the quality-tag? > Could you give an example? Again, I'd like to go level-wise: what is it? water source is it potable? yes/no/conditional why is it non-potable? compromised/designated why conditional? needs boiling etc. Thereby everyone will find the water (useful at least to wash a car / water the flowers, but also could usually be drunk after proper treatment). Then we clearly indicate the most critical parameter. And we go on. If at any level the data is not available or the data user cannot use it, integrity is not violated. Basically, it's the XML approach, and it seems to work fine. > > >> >> In principle, details regarding the kind of water source could be >> provided here as well, to free up the top level a bit and help data users: >> >> water_source:type = tap | fountain | well | spring >> > > > or have this inherited from the main tag (e.g. amenity=fountain, > man_made=water_tap, natural=spring, man_made=water_well > I agree in general, but I do not know how inheritance works in OSM. Where can I read about it? Cheers, Kotya
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
