Hi all and thank you for those interesting developments
My point is all about semantics and ease the mappers' work
Like everyone, I agree to distinguish pressurized fire hydrants, and
"dry"
hydrants like ones where a pump is required to get water.
But not in favor of an additional value of emergency key.
This will lead to extra large and cluttered like
emergency=big_yellow_fire_hydrant and
emergency=small_cap_covering_underground_valve
It's really interesting both from mapper and consumer view to use
several
keys to give pieces of information.
Ok, my understanding is you want to have only to categories:
* Pressurized water sources (fire hydrants)
* "dry" hydrants where a pump has to be brought to get water ("dry"
hydrants or suction points or whatever tag it will be)
Pressurized or not, there are connectorized pipes wich allow
firefighters
to get water which have a given appearance on ground (barrel,
underground,
pipe...)
Even if it's not always pressurized, the design of such things is done
as
to allow the water to flow under pressure (gravity, pumped or whatever)
and
that's why I like to think "dry" and "pressurized" "hydrants" are all
members of the same set of feature.
Then we should not call it hydrant, because the hydrant (by the meaning
of the word) is something connected
to the water main ;)
Otherwise, you have ponds, wells, which are open field water sources
But "dry" hydrants are always connected to other water sources like
ponds, wells, water_tanks.
They are not isolated things on the field. So you have the "dry" hydrant
which is next to a pond/lake/etc. and
connected to it.
When I'm understanding you right, you propose to put dry hydrants into
same category like real hydrants.
Because the mappers can't distinguish between real and dry hydrants.
But then the problem what to do with the other variants of suction
points (e.g. wells) persists.
Here in Germany there are wells which can look like dry hydrants. So the
unexperienced mappers would put them
also in the hydrants category, according to your above statement.
This leads to no or little value of these information for the
firefighters. When I have to decide where to get water
for the fire engine, I try to avoid using wells, ponds, lakes in first
place. Just because the hazzle to get water
quickly is much bigger than just connecting the hose to the hydrant.
In a second time, i respectably disagree (without shortening the good
work
done) to namespaces keys suction_point:, fire_hydrant: and so on...
In some cases they are redundant and don't ease the key name typing in
editors without pressets.
It may be great to don't encourage them, please.
You mean you disagree on on using something like suction_point:source=*
and suction_point:position=* to further describe
the features of a given suction point/dry hydrant?
How would you attach the additional attributes to such a
dry_hydrant/suction point when you just have 2 categories for more then
2 items to be distinguished?
But I agree that we will somehow end up improving the tagging of
hydrants/dry hydrants and stuff ;)
Cheers
Moritz
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
