I agree with all of your points, Marc. I too was concerned with the check_date tag and exchanged emails about it. We resolved it after a fashion but I still have some questions about what the tag really means. Your clarification sounds appropriate.
Agree as well with the hydrant_count and name tags. I've never seen a hydrant with a name either and including the name tag in the wiki invites people to create one. On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:16 AM, marc marc <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Le 17. 12. 17 à 18:35, Viking a écrit : > > I think we can go on refining hydrant tags, so I formally call a Request > For Comments on this page [1]. > > I remember that someone had pictures of different wrenches: can he/she > add them to the table on [1]? > > check_date tag is very imprecise. some use it to indicate when they > checked the object on the ground without knowing what was checked. > others use it to check the date of objects under construction in > external sources without verification of the ground. I had proposed that > we use operational_status:date which has the merit of making it clear > that we are want to have the functional test. But this tag is not > specific to hydrants, I'm not sure it should be added in the proposal of > hydrants. I wrote to the author of the proposal operational_status but I > did not get an answer. I will ask again and if it does not answer, I > will propose to take over the proposal separately from the hydrants. > What do you think about ? > > another think : imho we should remove name as "usefull combination". > I checked one by one many hydrants with this tag, I never found a > hydrant with a real name. the fact that it's advisable led people to try > to fill it with anything (I saw addresses, operators, flow rates, > name=hydrant). if everyone agrees on this point, I do not think it is > needed to vote on this point because the addition has not been voted on > either, it is a minor modification of the wiki. > > also we should remove fire_hydrant:count=* as "usefull combination" > we can keep it in the wiki sheet it-self for documentation of the > meaning. but it's better to map 2 hydrants as 2 nodes and therefore > fire_hydrant:count is imho not a usefull combination > > Regards, > Marc > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
