[Tagging] Hot springs
Hi, I have significantly changed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and enhancments. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:28:28PM +0100, Richard Z. wrote: > Hi, > > I have significantly changed > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring > with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and > enhancments. just to clarify, among other changes I changed it from leisure= to natural= and the comments bellow the page are old comments.. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
Am 27.02.2014 15:28:13 schrieb(en) Vincent Pottier: > What about drinking_water used also more than 3000 times ? > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinkable (~3300) > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinking_water (~3100) > > It seems that today "drinkable=*" is on "standalone watering objects" > (fountains, springs...) and "drinking_water=*" is on other amenities > or objects (shelter, toilets...). > > It seems also that the values should be the same. > > And it seems that "drinking_water=*" would fit both "standalone" > objects and other objects, rather than "drinkable". What do you think > of amenity=toilets + drinkable=yes ? But in contrast, > "amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes sounds good. > > So I would be in favour of a single "drinking_water" tag having 6400 > occurrences and a migration from "drinkable" to "drinking_water" > tags. > It is easy to migrate softly the "drinkable" to drinking_water" by > duplicating the tags in a first time and make the first obsolete. That's an interesting idea. No objection from me. I see a little problem in the "legal relevance". IMHO "drinkable=yes" has no legal relevance. It means the water is drinkable, even without official control. Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging "drinkable=official". The tag "drinking_water=yes" implicates somehow a legal relevance. I would like to tag a spring in the mountains with "drinkable=yes", although you will never get a official clearance for this source of water. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
I don't like drinkable=official. I'd like drinkable=yes + drinkable:source=official. Janko 2014-03-02 18:35 GMT+01:00 Rudolf Martin : > That's an interesting idea. No objection from me. > > I see a little problem in the "legal relevance". > IMHO "drinkable=yes" has no legal relevance. It means the water is > drinkable, even without official control. > Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging > "drinkable=official". > > The tag "drinking_water=yes" implicates somehow a legal relevance. I > would like to tag a spring in the mountains with "drinkable=yes", > although you will never get a official clearance for this source of > water. > > Rudolf > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
