sent from a phone
> On 8 Oct 2022, at 14:23, Davidoskky via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > > It feels strange to me that the same exact structure might belong to three > different primary tags according to whether the water provided is potable or > not or if animals can use it or not. this is the result of focusing what apparently most people are interested in (drinking water), regardless of the physical details It started like this 14-15 years ago, is working well for dataconsumers and also for mappers, but it leaves some questions open for those with specific requirements. That’s why we decided some years ago to record additional detail about the structure in the fountain tag. As a parallel development, 2 tags have been created in “man_made”, water taps (motivated from the people that wanted to map sources of non-potable water) and drinking_fountain (which is somehow a duplicate of fountain=drinking, but could help a as lower level “catch-all” when a more specific fountain type is tagged which is not known to the data consumer/reader). While I don’t use the man_made=drinking_fountain tag, I don’t see a need for explicit deprecation either. Parallel to “fountain” there are other sources of drinking water for different contexts, natural springs, water points to get bigger quantities, fountains which also provide drinking water, toilets where drinking water may be available, watering places, water taps, water wells, etc. All of these can already be described, although there could (should IMHO) be more properties for the details, for example: direction of the water, presence of a bowl/trough, presence of a tap(valve), kind of tap (push button or permanent, maybe sensors), capacity (how many people can use it at the same time, in case of a drinking fountain). kind of connection fixture (in case of water point) Additionally maybe even other properties like temperature flow quantity colour odor or if available chemical composition Some of them might be seen implied from other tags (e.g. a water tap will have a tap) > > Moreover, that same thing might have a tap, thus in that case you may wish to > tag it in even more ways; you may decide to tag it as a tap or as a watering > place or as a fountain. I give precedence to fountains over taps, for a drinking fountain you could add tap=yes or no, in case of a bigger fountain you would tag the tap as its own object. > > Either tagging will not provide complete information about the object, but > only partial according to which one you picked. You have to combine several tags to get a detailed picture, while many people seem to be fine with amenity=drinking_water and stop there ;-) I believe our tagging scheme for drinking water is following general interest here. It is clear that you can always see things from a different angle and come to a different tagging scheme, but to actually change (as opposed to amending) what has been built upon in many years by many people, there must be terrible flaws with the status quo or very convincing advantages with the new way. Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
