On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution > than amenity=drinking_water: > 7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important > for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated amenity, and still be very > useful: e.g. a public toilet in a well-developed country can provide > access to drinking water, but it's not an amenity=drinking_water, it > is amenity=toilet. Marking one thing with two amenity nodes is > possible but (1) it's a workaround rather than a nice solution; (2) I > think many people, especially tourists from less developed countries, > may not even understand such tagging and will be looking for a > dedicated amenity. > A key problem with your proposal is divergent tagging with no migration plan. ------------- Double amenity was *not* in common use prior to your proposal: amenity=toilets;drinking_water Instead the tagging has been: amenity=toilets drinking_water=no Similarly for shops: amenity=shop toilets=yes toilets:wheelchair=yes toilets:disposal=flush Or other places: tourism=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=yes At the first level of tagging these can be seen as attributes of the amenity, much like opening hours, website, etc.. If detailed tagging is done (e.g. individual camp pads), then the individual water taps can be mapped at that time. Until then the existing tagging works just fine. For backcountry camp sites tagging water is critical. The first question after "where is it", is "will there be water", followed by "is that water potable". Bottom line: please listen to other mappers.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
