Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication, information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability specification.
Taking into account everything said, I would propose: 1) To introduce a key "water_source". 2) The values will be: potable, nonpotable, yes (or is "potability_unknown" better?) 3) Deprecate "amenity=drinking_water" in favour of "water_source=potable" 4) All other related tags remain as is: natural=spring natural=water amenity=water_point man_made=water_well waterway=water_point and define the type of water source with more detail. 5) Man_made=water_tap can still be introduced, to accompany man_made=water_well. However, the main purpose of this proposal is served by the most general water_source tag. I do understand that this goes somewhat out of the existing scheme. However: - Can you propose a better solution, not just criticise the proposal (criticism is very welcome, but please try to bring the discussion closer to the agreement)? - I think that the existing situation with the top-level "amenity=drinking_water" is a rather poor solution, even if widely used. Once again, please take into account that OSM was originally introduced in developed countries, thus the established tagging system comes from their realities. OSM is now gaining popularity in developing countries, and the tagging system is bound to be dynamic if we don't want to end up with a very low quality map (with either non-tagged features or with dozens of custom or wrong tags). Also keep in mind that mappers from developing countries are not extremely likely to participate in this English-language discussion. Finally, I would advocate the start of discussion to standardize the tagging system, make it more uniform and thus mapper- and consumer-friendly. Just keep it in mind please when considering this specific proposal. Cheers, Kotya On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > "If you can only chose between potable and non-potable" - in this case > tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value. > > 2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100 >> From: Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> <pier...@gmail.com> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> <tagging@openstreetmap.org> <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31 >> Message-ID: >> <capt3zjr3gsqafyxewxvnuyc2n_7tr-git3jpuortmauf2a1...@mail.gmail.com> >> <capt3zjr3gsqafyxewxvnuyc2n_7tr-git3jpuortmauf2a1...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> >> <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged. >> >> +1 We don't tag what is unknown. Pierre >> >> >> 'We' know there is water there. That water can be used. >> >> If you can only chose between potable and non-potable, then you should >> chose non-potable. Filtering and treating non-potable water makes it >> potable .. I do this when in remote areas for my safety, particularly if >> I'm uncertain of the quality of the water. In some cases acess to water can >> be a life saver - thus it should be mapped no matter what the quality. >> >> ================= >> Note change in Subject title - my appoliges for my error there. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
