dpipe
colour=green
water_source=main
The wikipedia[1] indicates that standpipe is the proper term for this
thing.
According to taginfo[2] it is already in use (434x).
Moritz
[0]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpipe_(stree
easier to use.
Cheers,
Moritz
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions
[2]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Fire_water_well
[3] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59352
[4]
http://www.feuerwehr-satow.de/typo3
Suction point is probably not the right word in English. I haven't
found
any specific idiomatic usage of this phrase, so it seems to just mean
"point where suction is present/applied".
I think it suction_point is just a word by word translation of German
word for it (point where to suck wat
How would you attach the additional attributes to such a
dry_hydrant/suction point when you just have 2 categories for more then
2 items to be distinguished?
But I agree that we will somehow end up improving the tagging of
hydrants/dry hydrants and stuff ;)
Cheers
Moritz
___
ng to this definition a dry hydrant is not a hydrant because of
the lack of connection to the water main.
Regards
Moritz
[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hydrant
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
a language issue here.
Here in Germany these dry hydrants are called suction point (actually the
German word for it) with proper signs.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>For suction point another proposal of refinement is needed.
+1
I'm currently on vacation but will do something when I'm back in two weeks.
So will be more quiet from my side until then.
Cheers
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing
fh:type tag. When somebody wants to know it in
more detail he can check for pillar:type.
Moritz
--
von unterwegs...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi Richard,
I've also no idea what a proper English word for that could be.
But as suction point is widely used in this case I would stick on
em=suction_point.
Moritz
On 18 August 2017 23:05:57 CEST, Richard Welty wrote:
>On 8/18/17 4:33 PM, Moritz wrote:
>>
>> Hi R
and large>300 m^3 or numeric value).
# Fire water pond
water_volume=# (numeric value in m^3).
# fire_hydrant:class=*
Should be clarified what AA, A, B, C means.
Cheers
Moritz
Am 2017-09-06 00:24, schrieb Viking:
Hi all.
@Marc
and is this tag well used? I am not able to judge whether va
s a absolute value.
I think it depends on the country, so the applications using this
information can convert from l to m^3 or small|medium|large
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
In the discussion page [0] someone says that check_date=* is a
synonymous of survey:date=* in common usage. Is this correct? Should
we use another tag functional_check=* ? But I don't like to introduce
a new tag.
+1 for not introducing a new tag.
But I think we need two different types of d
what can a operational_status be net specific enough for a hydrant ?
if you test that water is going out the hydrant, I didn't see what is
not specific enough to call it "a functional check"
+1
Let's say if the hydrant meets the requirements in terms of
pressure/flow rate it status is ok.
pump:type
key.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
stead of stream?
Cheers
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
natural pond also -> water_source=waterbody
if it is an artificial created pond then it should be water_source=pond
and get the water_volume key.
With that scheme it is clear, that the amount of water is unlimited
(waterbody) or limited (pond, together with the
volume k
Am 2017-09-14 12:46, schrieb marc marc:
With that scheme it is clear, that the amount of water is unlimited
(waterbody) or limited (pond, together with the
volume key)
would not it be easier to keep the 2 separate info?
water_source for the source (stream, river, lake, ocean, sea)
water_volume=
uences the source value.
Why should we add another key (water_volume) to an unlimited source
where
the information "unlimited" is implicitly given by the
water_source=waterbody key?
Again this would add more complexity.
Cheers
Moritz
___
ssues from part 1 to part 2
Since we are using colon ( : ) in many tags, I'm wondering if we
should switch back to:
couplings_type -> couplings:type
couplings_diameters -> couplings:diameters
+1
Cheers
Moritz
[1]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hy
As nobody reacted on my last post on splitting it in a different way, just let
us go for voting and see what will happen.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Thanks for the effort you put in this proposal and splitting it again.
Regarding your last question how to proceed:
I would aim for the proposals to get approved (even if it only means
that there are some people on the tagging list how voted for it and it
is not related to all the other mapper
Me too.
Can anyone check if the proposal [1] is consistent and error-free?
Feel free to add better descriptions.
I will read over it on the weekend.
And then can we go directly to vote it, or have we to call a RFC again?
I would start a (possible shorter) RFC again and explicitly ask the
pe
The new proposal sounds reasonable for me.
Have you already contacted anybody who opposed the previous proposal?
I'm still thinking it would make sense to ask them individually but
don't want to annoy them by to much contact requests
No, I didn't concact them individually yet. Moritz, can you do it?\
Will do.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t to annoy them by to much contact requests.
No, I didn't concact them individually yet. Moritz, can you do it?
If someone else (and not only me) shows them that he/she cares about
this proposal, it would be better.
Thank you
Alberto
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare
Moritz, did you contact individually people who opposed the previous
proposal?
Yes, I left a comment on every discussion page.
It seems that at least some of them commented on the new proposal.
One feedback I got via mail was that we should split hydrants and
suction_points, as they are in
Am 2017-11-09 18:12, schrieb Viking:
About the split, if
someone wants to go in that direction, he can start a new proposal
focused on that point. I think that we all agree, don't we?
You are right, I think there is still the part 3 of the proposal and
afterwards we can think about a new
Nakaner just commented on his user page
So, wie es aussieht, ist es jetzt deutlich besser. Die verbleibenden
Tagänderungen sind in meinen Augen ausreichend gut begründet
Which translates to
How it looks like now is way better. The remaining changes of tags are
to my mind sufficiently explaine
into the
feature page in which the proposal results in.
The proposal process[0] page also states for the voting phase
"At this point there must be only one proposal on the page, which should
not be changed anymore, so it's clear what is being voted on."
Cheers
Mor
for
an icon feel free to send. Maybe
I will use an "U" undefined. The question mark indicates hydrants
without fire_hydrant:type.
[...]
As there is no proposal for emergency=suction_point yet, I'm not
displaying them at the moment.
Moritz
[0]: https://wambachers-osm.website/e
Alberto,
thanks for your effort.
I've updated fire hydrant page [1]. Can you check it, and improve it,
if necessary?
Will check it and try to translate for the German version.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
(even
if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump"
is about the power source, and says nothing about the function or
construction.
What is your suggestion for proper tagging a
* water driven bilge pump which is integrated in the well
* an electric pump integrated
n
This will need a whole proposal to get a comprehensive description for
pumps.
I think we should only use pump=yes for now and wait for a more
complete
document to be written.
I disagree, that would make the proposal useless. Then only wrench and
check_date would be left.
Moritz
___
:type already exists, but if you think it is too generic, we
can introduce pump:driven_by=electricity/water.
Could be.
or
pump:powered_by=electricity|water
pump:power_medium sounds less clear to me: what do you think?
Yes, not the best option.
Moritz
[0]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
Hi François,
Am 2017-12-20 19:00, schrieb François Lacombe:
2017-12-20 12:21 GMT+01:00 Moritz :
I disagree, that would make the proposal useless. Then only wrench and
check_date would be left.
That wasn't my point.
pump=yes can stay in the proposal
I misunderstood that.
But
+1 for Michal's thoughts.
Thus not mapping it explicitly. Whoever wants to find spots suitable for
Urbex should
look for ruins/abandoned etc.
Regards
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetma
36 matches
Mail list logo
