date:20180112

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:05:09 +0100
"OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> How would you tag it ?

I also sometimes look through suspicious objects - and in cases like
this I sometimes

- open notes so local mappers are able to respond (now or in a future)
- ask in a changeset that created object or was last that somebody
  substantially modified it (I did it in
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51582935 )

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

2018-01-12 Thread marc marc

from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :)

Le 12. 01. 18 à 14:52, Jo a écrit :
> You are right in that we shouldn't base any of our mapping on what is 
> visible on Google Streetview. Which is why I was suggesting that 
> somebody go check it out locally. I've been looking at Belgian aerial 
> imagery we are allowed to use, taken over several years. But nothing 
> useful can be seen on them either. What can be seen is that almost never 
> more than 1 car was parked there when the planes flew over. So it's 
> definitely not a parking lot.
> 
> I don't think we really have a way to tag an empty piece of land with no 
> defined "function" nor vegetation on it,
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> 2018-01-12 14:38 GMT+01:00 José G Moya Y.  >:
> 
> Please notice that, for doing something similar to what you do here
> (reading a lot of maps and aerial imaginery, being only one of them
> [3] google maps) I was forced to erase my edition and do it again.
> Just to warn you.
> 
> El 12/1/2018 8:30, "Jo"  > escribió:
> 
> It definitely doesn't look like a public parking lot. It would
> be good if someone local could resurvey if the shop is still in
> that house.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 2018-01-12 5:19 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis  >:
> 
> is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ?
> 
> If not, you might consider not fixing it. Yes it will be a
> useless
> polygon in the database, but isn't that better than changing
> it e.g.
> to a parking lot while it is a private property ?
> 
> just my .5 cents
> 
> m.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:05 AM, OSMDoudou
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com
> > wrote:
>  > Hello,
>  >
>  > Osmose is complaining an area is mapped but not further
> specified: [1] and
>  > [2]
>  >
>  > Here is how the place looks like: [3]
>  >
>  > I was thinking it's a side walk, but they're not to be
> mapped as area [4]
>  > and the place doesn't really look like a square or plaza
> [5] nor like a
>  > parking.
>  >
>  > How would you tag it ?
>  >
>  > Thx.
>  >
>  > [1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15140678368
> 
>  > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253
> 
>  > [3] https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2
> 
>  > [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
> 
>  > [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:14:31 +0100
Selfish Seahorse  wrote:

> should I add a
> note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is
> discouraged?

What tag you want to describe as discouraged? drinkable?
drinking_water?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

2018-01-12 Thread Andy Townsend


On 12/01/2018 14:06, marc marc wrote:

from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :)



Which to be clear is a pretty rare tag - 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=gravel - 431 uses 
worldwide.


Best Regards,
Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

Hi!
"amenity=drinking_water works for me" it's ok for me too
amenity=drinking_water it is a very good, universal, proven and needed tag.
I wondered if it was possible to determine the quality of the water more
accurately. It looks like with drinking_water=yes/no/boil/ ... is an
indispensable tag, widely used, easy to use and used by many app.

I can not understand the introduction of the amenity=water_point tag. Was
not better to add water_point=yes/.?
e.g.
amenity=drinking_water
drinking_water=yes
water_point=yes

I do not understand what's different in water_point from amenity_drnking at
the moment I think it's 100% synonymous.
Browsing wikicommons in search of water point examples, you can clearly see
that it is a synonymus/replacement for drinking water. I have the
impression that this tag is used for drinking water in the Great Britain,
but someone should check it out.

Humans, machine, animals need clean unpolluted water. I do not know what
the division is due to. If is clean water tested from amenity=water_point
can not be used for watering animals or people and vice versa?
How was the water source's efficiency calculated for tag
amenity=water_point?

If there is such a waterway=water_point tag, maybe should be a new tag
created for the fuel boat service station e.g. waterway=fuel?;
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel

Someone can explain the reason for imports amenity=water_point
https://postimg.org/image/f3607hgl1/ for example an increase in the amount
of the tag amenity=drinking_water https://postimg.org/image/f3607hgl1/ you
can see big differences http://taghistory.raifer.tech/.

news
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/water-point-provide-safe-affordable-drinking-numerous-chayon-moitra
there is more.

Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

It should be
Someone can explain the reason for imports amenity=water_point
https://postimg.org/image/48ok5saed/ for example an increase in the amount
of the tag amenity=drinking_water https://postimg.org/image/f3607hgl1/ you
can see big differences http://taghistory.raifer.tech/.
Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

Otherwise. If the amenity=dringing_water tag is not suitable (the end user
can not see the code), it may be worth considering a global change to
amenity=water_point. If  amenity=water_point is not suitable should be
deprecated. For me it does not matter if there is amenity=drinking_water or
amenity=water_point both tags are synonyms. In my opinion, it should be one
for the water intake.

Regards.
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

2018-01-12 Thread OSMDoudou

Don't worry about local knowledge, I'm local mapper and will survey the place.

I found a dozen of similar or slightly different cases in the area, and the 
problem is not about verify things, but about *what* to verify.

The goal of using street view images is not to map based on that, but to 
discuss the most concretely possible the approach to tag such a place, i.e. 
what visual clues are you searching for and not seeing in the image (e.g. "I 
was looking for a parking road sign, but I don't see one"), what other sources 
of information to possibly consult (e.g. reach out to other local mappers via 
changeset comments or a note on the map), etc.

As an additional information, this piece of land is not a private property 
(it's not circled with a red line in the governmental map registering 
properties [1]). So, it's perfectly allowed to park there, and if in practice 
it's not frequently used for that, it's probably simply because there is enough 
parking around closer to the places that need a visit.

So, I was thinking:
- amenity=parking and informal=yes, because it's obvious it can serve as a 
parking place but it's not visually designated as such (no road signs)
- highway=service, service=driveway and area=yes, because it can be used to 
reach to properties
- landuse=retail and landcover=gravel, because it's reasonable to consider it 
part of the adjacent retail area
- delete the area, because there is no clear main purpose (but if another 
mapper found it worth mapping it in the first place, there must be some value 
to it)

I was tempted by parking, but I'm now more inclined towards landuse=retail.

[1] 
http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=6294968BB7625EA3E053D0AFA49DC676


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

2018-01-12 Thread Tobias Knerr

I sometimes use surface=* as a stand-alone tag for areas with an unclear
or uninteresting purpose. Doing so captures the physical reality on the
ground pretty well in my opinion.

From this point of view, the area in question is already tagged
correctly. Maybe we can find out what it's being used for, in which case
adding that information would further improve the data. But I don't
believe there should be a requirement to map the function of an area
before you can map the fact that it's covered with gravel.

On 12.01.2018 00:15, marc marc wrote:
> landcover=gravel

That would indeed be another possibility. It doesn't provide any new
information when compared with surface=gravel, though.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 12-Jan-18 08:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 11. Jan 2018, at 22:14, Selfish Seahorse  wrote:

In order to avoid repeating ourselves again in a year: should I add a
note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is
discouraged?


I’m all for tagging details, and if someone wants to add man_made or other tags to an 
amenity=drinking_water he should do it, but I don’t want to require it. (We’re using 
“fountain=” around here to tag subtypes of drinking fountains)

amenity=drinking_water works for me, and it is widely in use, to discourage its 
use in the wiki you would need more than a discussion of a handful of people on 
this list.


The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring, a stream, 
a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road.

The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. They do not need 
amenity=drinking_water, and suggesting that amenity=drinking_water
 should be included with them is wrong. Rendering of these man_made tags is a 
separate issue and should not determine the tags used.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:56:39 +0100
"OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> landuse=retail

landuse=retail should include also shop buildings (it include all area
used for retail, not areas used for retail purposes that were not
tagged using other tags)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 13-Jan-18 05:07 AM, Cez jod wrote:

Hi!
"amenity=drinking_water works for me" it's ok for me too
amenity=drinking_water it is a very good, universal, proven and needed 
tag.
I wondered if it was possible to determine the quality of the water 
more accurately. It looks like with drinking_water=yes/no/boil/ ... is 
an indispensable tag, widely used, easy to use and used by many app.


I can not understand the introduction of the amenity=water_point tag. 
Was not better to add water_point=yes/.?

e.g.
amenity=drinking_water
drinking_water=yes
water_point=yes

I do not understand what's different in water_point from 
amenity_drnking at the moment I think it's 100% synonymous.


Amenity= drinking_water is non specific. It does not tell me if I can 
drink directly from it (I can from a man_made=drinking_fountain), fill a 
water bottle without trouble (I can from a man_made=tag, 
drinking_water=yes), fill a caravan water tank (I and from a 
amenity=water_point) .. etc etc. People did not want to add subtags to 
amenity=drinking_water as you have done because some of these features 
have sings that say drinking_water=no, to have a feature with 
amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=no is not good! .




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

"The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. They do
not need amenity=drinking_water, and suggesting that
amenity=drinking_water
  should be included with them is wrong. Rendering of these man_made
tags is a separate issue and should not determine the tags used."
You've been curiously writing why they do not need it? Water must be
safe, it is not always known how good the water is.

You must know that the well are not only for water.
I am afraid that man made=drinking_fountain can be subtag a mam made=tape

man made=well they were, are and will be built to obtain water but
also to drainage, etc.: ...
man made=tape it is a technical device from which you can get water
not always drinking.
man made=drinking_fountain must have information if human can use this
water intake for health and legal reasons.

Regard
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

"Amenity= drinking_water is non specific. It does not tell me if I can
drink directly from it (I can from a man_made=drinking_fountain), fill a
water bottle without trouble (I can from a man_made=tag,
drinking_water=yes), fill a caravan water tank (I and from a
amenity=water_point) .. etc etc. People did not want to add subtags to
amenity=drinking_water as you have done because some of these features
have sings that say drinking_water=no, to have a feature with
amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=no is not good! ."

I think that man_made=drinking_fountain is subtag man_made=tap.
man_made=drinking_fountain is very different from amenity=fountain. See
how it works.

"drinking_water=no is not good." you're right,
 but removing drinking_water=no would require removing completely
drinking_water=* which is rather not the best thing for many reasons.
You can always describe in the wiki that man_made=drinking_fountain do
not require drinking_water=yes because in all cases the water comes from
 a safe source.
You also have tags like drinking_water:legal=no/yes

I think it would be worth adding a tag if the water is really harmful
hazard=poison (in the sense of water contaminated permanently, for
example: salt, heavy metals, radiation, chemicals)

Regard
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:46:55 +1100
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring,
> a stream, a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road.
> 
> The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves.

Are you aware that there are water taps with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater ?

And that
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is
used only 36 times worldwide?

Removing amenity=drinking_water and replacing it with
man_made=water_tap or man_made=drinking_fountain is not an edit that
should be made.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] (no subject)

"man made=drinking_fountain must have information if human can use this
water intake for health and legal reasons."

Upss. I mean amenity=fountain not man made=drinking_fountain

Regards

Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

"man made=drinking_fountain must have information if human can use this
water intake for health and legal reasons."

Upss. I mean amenity=fountain not man made=drinking_fountain

Regards

Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

2018-01-12 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Cez jod  wrote:

I think it would be worth adding a tag if the water is really harmful
hazard=poison (in the sense of water contaminated permanently, for example:
salt, heavy metals, radiation, chemicals)

I don't know if this is a language issue or some peculiarity of labelling
in your country, but most of us understand that "drinking water" is *not*
toxic, radioactive, contaminated with sewage, or petrol but is, in fact, *water
that is safe for drinking.  *That's what "drinking water" means (in my
country and language).  It doesn't matter if it comes out of a tap or a
drinking fountain, "drinking water" is water that is intended for drinking
and is safe to consume.  If it's not safe to consume, or is not water, then
it isn't "drinking water."

Note that "potable" doesn't mean drinking water, it means any liquid that
can be (reasonably) safely ingested, such as orange juice or beer.

Note that vending machines selling water (bottled or as a measured flow),
no matter how similar their name may be to "drinking point" or whatever,
are best tagged as amenity=vending_machine and vending=water.  However, a
specific one is known to dispense water that does not meet legal
requirements or dispense water for uses other than drinking, then it is
appropriate to add drinking_water=no.

All IMHO, of course.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

2018-01-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 12. Jan 2018, at 22:30, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> And that
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is
> used only 36 times worldwide?
> 
> Removing amenity=drinking_water and replacing it with
> man_made=water_tap or man_made=drinking_fountain is not an edit that
> should be made.


+1, please keep in mind that the wiki is documenting what people are doing, not 
what they should do (the latter is done in proposals ;-) )

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

"Note that "potable" doesn't mean drinking water, it means any liquid that
can be (reasonably) safely ingested, such as orange juice or beer."

That's right, but here we are talk about water, not all other
substances that contain it.
Small beer has not killed anyone yet(it is harmful after several years
of daily consumption).
Does anyone know any allergy to water because for alcohol, juice can be?
You can drink some beer, juce, but you do not have to, it's not like
water anymore.
In the water can be, for example: fertilizer, pesticides, etc.: ...
water drink children, women in before, during pregnancy, etc.:
"In a special WHO report, 88% of all water-borne diseases are caused
by poor hygiene,
poor sanitation and lack of access to safe water."

Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

Everyone is focused on amenity=drinking water. I have a question for the
source tag amenity=water_point, waterway=water_point (waterway=fuel maybe
also should be?) Is all confusion about amenity=drinking_water and
amenity=water_point related to the grammar of english language?

Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

2018-01-12 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Cez jod  wrote:

Everyone is focused on amenity=drinking water. I have a question for the
> source tag amenity=water_point, waterway=water_point (waterway=fuel maybe
> also should be?) Is all confusion about amenity=drinking_water and
> amenity=water_point related to the grammar of english language?
>

It appears to have arisen from some mappers doing some silly things.

A waterway, in English, and on OSM is a *navigable* body of inland water
such as a river or a canal.  There's another  meaning in English (but not
OSM) of waterway to mean a conduit to drain water.

As it says on the wiki (you do check the wiki, don't you) somebody
mistakenly used waterway=water_point instead of amenity=drinking_water.
(safe to drink) or man_made=water_tap (not necessarily safe to drink) or
amenity=water_point (safe to fill holding tanks with drinking water).

This was later used by UK mappers to mean a place to fill holding tanks on
canal boats.  So waterway=water_point is drinking water, but from a tap not
a drinking fountain and probably capable of high flow rates, and
specifically for filling holding tanks on boats.  amenity=water_point is
the equivalent for caravan parks.  Arguably, waterway=water_point should be
deprecated in favour of amenity=water_point, but OSM (like many languages)
has irregularities and exceptions.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

"I don't know if this is a language issue or some peculiarity of labelling
in your country"

I understand that you suggest a change amenity=drinking_water to
amenity=water_point I am very much in charge. In OSM, we map usage the
first tag in your country(not only yours) was amenity=drinking_water to
which it was added logically drinking_water=yes/no because it is logical
that every water(mostly in the world) obtained from a well, a tap, a
fountain, a spring ... is not drinking without boiling (mostly).

"but most of us understand that "drinking water" is *not*
toxic, radioactive, contaminated with sewage, or petrol but is, in fact,
*water
that is safe for drinking."

Please, blame many countries in the world who do not understand English and
map out every available source of water as amenity=drinking_water what is
your idea for this tag because it causes problems? do you want to mask or
change it?

"*That's what "drinking water" means (in my country and language)." In my
language and country it means exactly the same (I think that in other
countries too).. I asked in advance if it would be worth replacing
amenity=drinking_water to amenity=water_point. Drinking water point what
does it mean in English? Can not I drink water with amenity = water_point

"If it's not safe to consume, or is not water, then
it isn't "drinking water." Water that is not for drinking is not water?.

All the time are regrets, despair, crying what amenity=drinking_water is
bad maybe worth changing to amenity=water_point will be better? Optimizing
tagging can help?

Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 13-Jan-18 08:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 12. Jan 2018, at 22:30, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

And that
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is
used only 36 times worldwide?


The frequency of use is,in part, determined by how long it has existed on the 
wiki,
how well 'advertised' by links on other wiki pages, and how well known the tag 
is.



Removing amenity=drinking_water and replacing it with
man_made=water_tap or man_made=drinking_fountain is not an edit that
should be made.


As a person who added some of these amenity=drinking_water in the past I feel 
that changing the ones I have added a better tag of,
say, man_made=drinking_fountain is justified ... that is what is specifically 
there.

Further .. if I find a drinking fountain at a place that has been tagged with 
amenity=drinking_water,
possibly a long time before the existence of man_made=drinking_fountain .. 
should it not be changed to a more specific tag???
I don't see adding details to past tagging as detrimental.
Should I stop changing residential areas to construction where that takes place?
Or from construction to residential/commercial? No.

Changing the tag to something else where it has changed or adds detail should 
not be discouraged, in fact it should be encouraged!
  





+1, please keep in mind that the wiki is documenting what people are doing, not 
what they should do (the latter is done in proposals ;-) )


The wiki documents what people use, not necessarily things that have been 
proposed ... eg office, shops etc.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 13-Jan-18 09:20 AM, Cez jod wrote:

"Note that "potable" doesn't mean drinking water, it means any liquid that
can be (reasonably) safely ingested, such as orange juice or beer."

That's right, but here we are talk about water, not all other 
substances that contain it. Small beer has not killed anyone yet(it is 
harmful after several years of daily consumption).Does anyone know any 
allergy to water because for alcohol, juice can be?


People have died from over drinking water! Medical term "hyponatremia".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-17/bushwalker-dies-after-drinking-too-much-water/4265296
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-hyponatremia#1

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 13-Jan-18 10:42 AM, Cez jod wrote:

"I don't know if this is a language issue or some peculiarity of  > labelling in 
your country"
In some parts of the world the best quality water available is not safe 
for drinking,
yet that is all that is available so people drink it rather than die 
from the lack of water.
This is not language, cultural nor religious. It is circumstance, 
usually a combination of weather and poverty.


OSM history is that amenity drinking_water existed long before 
tap/drinking_fountain/well .. so it is the most numerous tag as that was 
all that was available to tag these features that are drinking water.
Now OSM has some choices as to what tag to use. If you cannot find a 
more suitable/detailed tag the amenity=drinking_water still exists.
Personally I would rather use a specific tag rather than a vague general 
tag.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

I understand that tag amenity=drinking_water is a problem because it
complicates basic tagging water sources.
I understand that the amenity=water_point is repair method has
appeared. Why not try to fix basic tagging.
Current tagging goes into atomization, fragmentation.

Maybe in 10 years we will have 10 tags responsible for water (3 for
drinking water
and 7 for non-drinking water plus subtags, etc.) . that makes sense?

Best Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types


On 13-Jan-18 08:04 AM, Cez jod wrote:

"The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. They do not need 
amenity=drinking_water, and suggesting that amenity=drinking_water
   should be included with them is wrong. Rendering of these man_made tags is a 
separate issue and should not determine the tags used."
You've been curiously writing why they do not need it? Water must be safe, it 
is not always known how good the water is.

You must know that the well are not only for water. I am afraid that 
man made=drinking_fountain can be subtag a mam made=tape


No.

A tap cannot be easily drunk from ... you need a cup/hand to divert the water 
to your mouth.

A drinking fountain has a jet of water that can be intercepted by your mouth - 
no cup required.

A tap can easily be used to fill a container.

A drinking fountain cannot easily be used to fill a container.

See the OSMwiki for physical structures?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Example_Photos

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain

Wells don't usually act as drains - that would contaminate the water with 
surface waste.

--

PS for some reason your posts do not link to the previous posts .. this makes 
following your discussion too difficult for me.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Water source types

In many man_made=drinking_fountain there is a smoll button or a small piece
of metal that opens the stream of water. Tap opened with a button, small
piece of metal or even motion detector.
In other points consent man_made=drinking_fountain it is only for drinking,
small amounts of water.

"I understand that tag amenity=drinking_water is a problem because it
complicates basic tagging water sources.
I understand that the amenity=water_point is repair method has
appeared. Why not try to fix basic tagging.
Current tagging goes into atomization, fragmentation.

Maybe in 10 years we will have 10 tags responsible for water (3 for
drinking water
and 7 for non-drinking water plus subtags, etc.) . that makes sense?"
It is possible that I approach meny problems differently and I do not
necessarily understand which side develops tagging in OSM.

Regards
Slavo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

2018-01-12 Thread Andrew Harvey

Is there a consensus here?

> The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring, a
stream, a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road

Well said, amenity=drinking_water "a place to get drinking water" really
just means drinking_water=yes and access=yes. Both a common tap and a
drinking fountain are places to get drinking water.

I feel it's fine for people to keep using amenity=drinking_water where you
don't know anything else (eg. like highway=road until it can be
classified), but feel these should be either:

man_made=drinking_fountain
man_made=water_tap (but remove the "press button" part of the description)

Personally I'd like to be able to distinguish all of the following things
which fall under water sources:

* support easily filling a bottle (some bubblers can make it very hard to
fill a bottle) yes/no (water_point:bottle_fill=yes/no)
* allow for easily drinking directly from the stream of water (typical
bubbler or drinking fountain would, but a tap pointing down would not)
(man_made=drinking_fountain)
* how is it operated (push and hold button, or a tap that you can turn on
or off, or if it uses a handle is one supplied or do you need to bring your
own handle to operate it, always on means you can't turn it off)
(water_point:operation=push_button/handle/handle_byo/always_on)
* does it have a hose attached (useful for say hosing down a boat etc)
water_point:hose=yes/no
* drinking_water=yes/no
* access=yes/no/public/private/customers/permissive (eg. taps on private
property)
* operator= (who operates it, eg. local council)
* fee (do you need to pay a fee to use it)
* is there a bowl for dogs to drink from (water_point:dog_bowl=yes/no)
* is the water chilled, heated, or "earth temperature"?

On 13 January 2018 at 10:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13-Jan-18 08:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 12. Jan 2018, at 22:30, Mateusz Konieczny 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And that
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is
>>> used only 36 times worldwide?
>>>
>>
> The frequency of use is,in part, determined by how long it has existed on
> the wiki,
> how well 'advertised' by links on other wiki pages, and how well known the
> tag is.
>
>
>>> Removing amenity=drinking_water and replacing it with
>>> man_made=water_tap or man_made=drinking_fountain is not an edit that
>>> should be made.
>>>
>>
> As a person who added some of these amenity=drinking_water in the past I
> feel that changing the ones I have added a better tag of,
> say, man_made=drinking_fountain is justified ... that is what is
> specifically there.
>
> Further .. if I find a drinking fountain at a place that has been tagged
> with amenity=drinking_water,
> possibly a long time before the existence of man_made=drinking_fountain ..
> should it not be changed to a more specific tag???
> I don't see adding details to past tagging as detrimental.
> Should I stop changing residential areas to construction where that takes
> place?
> Or from construction to residential/commercial? No.
>
> Changing the tag to something else where it has changed or adds detail
> should not be discouraged, in fact it should be encouraged!
>
>
>
>> +1, please keep in mind that the wiki is documenting what people are
>> doing, not what they should do (the latter is done in proposals ;-) )
>>
>
> The wiki documents what people use, not necessarily things that have been
> proposed ... eg office, shops etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Water source types