On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren
<[email protected]> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal -
Voting - Water tap Message-ID:
<capt3zjr3djv_s0krxhdmb4jgyv_9ztyigowux+1nhcmx-a7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58
AM, Kotya Karapetyan <[email protected]> wrote:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing
"amenity=drinking_water" tag. And we get enough complains from
newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion.
The "amenity=drinking_water" tag is old and widely used (82.000 in
taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource
which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the
question referenced from the "help" site ([1]). I fully agree that we
need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag
"amenity=drinking_water". I did not follow the whole discussion but
when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first
sentence in the wiki says "This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly
usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water
taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be
further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. " A bit later, there is
a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where
is the difference between "man_made=water_tap"+"drinking_water=yes"
and "amenity=drinking_water". And nowhere it says if "drinking_water"
subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about
potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a
tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the
lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older
tag. Why not but then tell it clearly.
Pieren
I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the
commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is
coming to a close.
1) amenity=drinking_water
The wiki has photos of blubbers - one tap. And that is what I have used
it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with
portable=no ... I'd like it changed to only reference blubbers or things
that are meant for the human to directly consume water. But that is
another discussion! And should be raised as a separate issue/subject to
attract attention to it on that topic ONLY. amenity=drinking_water needs
clarification. Without any other tag for a tap .. well I'll use it
inappropriately as I have no other choice... is that a solution that is
acceptable? Or should I use amenity=water_point .. though it is not
intended for large quantities of water?
2) Taps. They need a tag. There is nothing suitable. Sub tags for them
have been discussed and there is a lot in them .. but they again should
be a separate topic/subject as they could be applied to other water
objects.
Voting 'no' on taps .. to me means we should not tag taps. May be I
should not map blubbers either ! Not clear to me what
amenity=drinking_water means exactly? And then there is the old chestnut
of highway=footway and highway=path. That is a ridiculous thing .. and
to justify it saying it is historical is no justification at all.If the
tag tap is better then why reject it due to a less suitable tag being
present? Just so the less suitable tag continues?
3) alternatives ?
amenity=water_point with sub tags
portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/
temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling
tap=yes/no
flow_rate=l/m
spigot=plain/threaded
? others?
Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus
water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/?
Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a level
should be a new discussion.
==========================
There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very basic level,
are 'we' tagging _what things are_ ... or _what they are used for_? Both
have been used, but there should be a fundamental decision to go one way
or the other.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
