Minh, thank you for your always-excellent research. With this recent law (2017) about purple pipes in California and the 2015 Uniform Codes (Plumbing, Mechanical), I stand corrected as to my “there is no color-coding” (on pipes for reclaimed water in California).
On Oct 9, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: > Vào lúc 23:50 2022-10-08, stevea đã viết: >> On Oct 8, 2022, at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. >>>> or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more >>>> CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this >>>> stuff, just look and smell it!) >>> >>> Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. >>> >>> Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in parks & >>> some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that they are >>> connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water should NOT be >>> drunk. >>> >>> https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg >> Yes, Graeme, in California (USA) we have exactly these (such as my golf >> course example). While there is no "purple means don't drink" color-coding >> here, there seems to be a state law (or something just as firm) that if a >> publicly-accessible "water tap" dispenses water which is NOT safe to drink >> (and again, these are no particular color), there MUST be a sign that says >> "non-potable" or "do not drink" or "using reclaimed water" or has the >> "international red circle-with-a-slash-means no and a picture of a human >> drinking water" icon...or ALL of the above. > > In California, any pipe or tap carrying recycled water is legally required to > be colored purple. [1] For water from other sources, "Do Not Drink", "No > Beber", or sign PS-013 [2] would be posted. Indoors, the Uniform Plumbing > Code, a national standard, specifies a particular shade of purple paint for > non-potable water pipes when the building also has potable water pipes. [3] > > drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there are > non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split hairs. > I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking fountains would > both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by default, but the default > should be overridden when more is known about the water source. > > With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a data > consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor tap is > potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New Orleans > that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once considered that > they might be hooked up to the municipal water system and maintained to the > standard of a public drinking fountain. > > [1] > https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwstatutes_20170113.pdf#page=30 > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD-CA_PS-013.svg > [3] https://forms.iapmo.org/email_marketing/codespotlight/2017/Aug3.htm _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
