On August 17, 2017 11:38:10 AM EDT, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: >On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: >> >> That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized >> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a >fire >> engine to suck the water out. It does not look like a traditional >fire >> hydrant at all. >there are always exceptions. not far from me, there's a traditional >hydrant of the type normally used with pressurized systems, but >it's sourced from a pond. the reason is that the pond is elevated, some >distance from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty >when it's not in use for the usual reasons. > >richard > >-- >rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Then that is a pressurized system and doesn't require drafting (there is gravity at work if the pond is elevated above the connection point). The whole point of a dry hydrant is to make drafting easier. Drafting is the pulling of water up by use of a pump. If the water is coming down then you don't need to pull the water and can do damage to many water systems if you do. Eric _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
