Hello, 1) free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers is very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as free_water=yes
2) yes, amenity=cafe, amenity=bar, amenity=restaurant are just examples. I wanted to give context for the purpose of the discussion. Our NGO will contribute to the creation of a network of cafes and restaurants willing to refill water bottles all over Europe. 3) carafe was a suggestion, happy to entertain any more self explicit suggestions. 4) yes, I have had extensive conversations with the Refill headquarters.. Their board will not entertain an open data model. Best regards, Stuart PS : I hope > > 6. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant > (Jake Edmonds) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:06:58 +0100 (CET) > From: Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > restaurant > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by [email protected]: > > > > > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and > free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers? > > > > > +1 > > And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water. > > > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including > pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference > amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative > illustration or example. > > > Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped > amenity=drinking_water is a good idea. > > > > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container, > not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many > other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So > free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people... > > > And water is not always served in a carafe. > > And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even > "carafe" word > is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown). > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/ecab19bc/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:36 +0100 > From: Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map > the Rio de la Plata, here > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310 > > This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and > is now coming back. > > According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization > defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining > Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what > has been the case in OSM until now: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the > "mouth" of the "river") > > and > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river") > > This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations > especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for > inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the > coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city. > > One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with > the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I > believe this is inline with guidance > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)". > > I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it > comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement > but this is still at the proposal stage. > > Opinions? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:28:30 +0900 > From: Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war > Message-ID: > < > cap_2vpjpphr035z0letpuzc_v9q6bpdqrwfcqqxw-u2eh5z...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or > natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's > the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine > environment. > > The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river > is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents. > > Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at > the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area > too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that > their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted. > > I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a > reasonable solution to be discussed. > > I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It > would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as > outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes > or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy > with other projects. > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map > > the Rio de la Plata, here > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310 > > > > This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and > > is now coming back. > > > > According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization > > defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining > > Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what > > has been the case in OSM until now: > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the > > "mouth" of the "river") > > > > and > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river") > > > > This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations > > especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for > > inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the > > coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal > city. > > > > One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with > > the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I > > believe this is inline with guidance > > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)". > > > > I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it > > comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement > > but this is still at the proposal stage. > > > > Opinions? > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:36:13 +0900 > From: Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war > Message-ID: > < > cap_2vpjrzmxjc+nsvae_hp_2oy+1v6au7qo0btuv9lk+te3...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Ok, I checked the changeset: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390 > > I doesn't look like the user who did the revert of the change was > intending to edit-war, but was instead responding to the appearance of > the Rio de la Plata being rendered as land on some map styles. > > This always happens for the first few hours up to a couple days after > a change to the coastline, because the ocean shapefiles used to render > the marine water environment are only updated once a day at most (and > if the coastline is broken it will not update every day). > > I responded to the changeset to explain this. > > Keeping the river area while also moving the coastline will prevent > this visual bug from occuring. > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > On 1/13/20, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or > > natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's > > the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine > > environment. > > > > The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river > > is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents. > > > > Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at > > the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area > > too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that > > their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted. > > > > I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a > > reasonable solution to be discussed. > > > > I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It > > would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as > > outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes > > or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy > > with other projects. > > > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > > > On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map > >> the Rio de la Plata, here > >> > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310 > >> > >> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and > >> is now coming back. > >> > >> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization > >> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining > >> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what > >> has been the case in OSM until now: > >> > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the > >> "mouth" of the "river") > >> > >> and > >> > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river") > >> > >> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations > >> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for > >> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the > >> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal > >> city. > >> > >> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with > >> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I > >> believe this is inline with guidance > >> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)". > >> > >> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it > >> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement > >> but this is still at the proposal stage. > >> > >> Opinions? > >> > >> Bye > >> Frederik > >> > >> -- > >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:58:34 +0100 > From: Jake Edmonds <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > restaurant > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I’ve heard of places not refilling water bottles due to hygiene reasons > (whether that is a concern or not is a separate discussion) but will give a > glass of water to whoever asks. And on the opposite side, there are places > that will refill bottles but won’t give a glass a water. > > > On 13 Jan 2020, at 11:06, Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by [email protected]: > > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and > free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers? > > > > +1 > > > > And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water. > > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including > pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference > amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative > illustration or example. > > Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped > > amenity=drinking_water is a good idea. > > > > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container, > not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many > other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So > free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people... > > And water is not always served in a carafe. > > > > And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even > "carafe" word > > is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown). > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/bfc26cdc/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 70 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
