Apr 11, 2025, 20:42 by elga...@agol.dk: > Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > >> I am using OSM data on my travels and one of more annoying failures is >> case where I arrived at some drinking water source, discovered that it >> is broken/gone/disused/abandoned. And on editing OSM it turns out that >> it was already marked this way but in a very weird way. >> > > > I generally agree. > But I do think there is also a grey area which should be discussed and > documented better. > > I have added and updated many water_point s. > Sometimes they do not work. > But what if is just temporarily? > > If I have reason to suspect that it is because of frost, I add seasonal=yes. > Some places have a policy of turning off the water from e.g., Nov-Feb. Some > do not say so, but do it anyway, some just turn off the water when frost > arrives, and some water_point just do not work when it is really cold. > oh yes, these type of situation is typical in Poland seasonal=yes would not be trigger in my edit to mark it as disused (for start it would be wrong as these are different things) > Sometimes there is a sign on the water_point saying: "Out of service". > You would think that if the owner of a motorhome stopover or the city put up > such a sign, it will be fixed quickly. > I would not be so optimistic :) > So I just add a note, to warn users. And you will skip things with notes, so > that is fine. > :) > Sometimes the sign look very old though. But at least if some OSM come months > or years later and see my then old note, they know that it was not just > temporarily. > yes, at that point it would be probably better to tag it as disused > In Spain there was a drought and water became very expensive, so some places > just turned if off. But most likely the water_point will work when there is > no drought. > > >> for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5036984190 >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/ node/5036984190> >> * removed: amenity = water_point >> * removed: man_made = water_well >> * removed: operational_status = out_of_order >> * added: disused:amenity = water_point >> * added: disused:man_made = water_well >> > > > I agree that water_point should be removed. > > But I am not sure, that it is not a man_made water_well. > > The wiki is not clear about that. > I.e. it shows > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Baudenbach_D-5-75-113-5_001.JPG > and > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Studnia.jpg > > which would be difficult to get water from. > note that something may be operational with restricted access - and it would get different tags > > It could be argued that a well could be a historic building even if you can > not get water from it. > Like a windmill can be tagged windmill:disused=yes but is still a windmill. > in such case disused:man_made = water_well seems clearly preferable over disused=yes man_made=water_well (see alsohttps://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-inactive-water-wells-man-made-water-well-disused-yes-vs-disused-man-made-water-well/97827) <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-inactive-water-wells-man-made-water-well-disused-yes-vs-disused-man-made-water-well/97827> Though I would consider adding also historic=water_well + tourism=attraction, heritage ref as applicable. (these would not be done in this proposed bot edit) > When I look for water sources, I would never search for wells. It they do > provide drinking water, they should have more tags to provide that > information. > I would assume that just about any water well with drinking water is operated > by some municipality and that there is no public access, even though that is > mostly not tagged as such. Most wells here are the kind that tourists throw > coins into. > note that very large part of these objects are in Africa where situation is a bit more diverse though I agree that some extra tags from on the ground survey would be very helpful
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
