Proposal talk:EU Bathing water information

EU namespace

Resolved: Emilius123 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Emilius123: thank you for this proposal.
As you mention those identifiers are dedicated to EU context, proposed key should go in ref:EU=* namespace, like ref:EU:eubwid=* or ref:EU:bwid=* as to avoid any conflict with another similarly named identifier in another part of the world. See ref:EU:EVSE=* for instance Fanfouer (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)------Added, was just a matter of adding a colon --Emilius123 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

URL tag

Resolved: --Emilius123 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For the URL tag, wouldn't url:bathing_water=* be a bit more consistent wit other tagging schemes than the camel case used in url:bathingWater=*? Other than that minor quibble, thanks for creating the proposal. I started adding something similar for some bathing waters in the UK and would happily change those to align with the proposal until the UK either adopts its own scheme (or abolishes public bathing water quality monitoring entirely). --Rskedgell (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)------Yes, it would be.--Emilius123 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Local vs. EU vs. other IDs

Resolved: --Trapicki (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Great idea to map that IDs and URLs! In your examples, Silbersee and Nachtweideweiher both have an URL to a local database with local IDs, that unfortunately do not map to the EU ID (but the EU ID encodes the location, at least for Germany: DERP=Deutschland Rheinland-Pfalz). This ID could also be tagged, but that needs some rearangement in the tagging scheme. Moreover the two tags (ID, URL) do not obviously connect to each other, and you would have to know that they go together. What about [[Key:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]:bathingwater=* as the common denoinator, ref=* and url=* as prefixes, and whatever points to the region (Country_code#ISO_3166-1, Country_code#ISO_3166-2, freetext) as optional postfix? Example: name=Silbersee natural=water ref:bathingwater:EU=DERP_PR_0062 ref:bathingwater:DE-RP=1172 URL:bathingwater:DE-RP=https://badeseen.rlp-umwelt.de/servlet/is/1172 or Canottieri natural=beach ref:bathingwater:EU=IT003012123002 ref:bathingwater:IT=4796 URL:bathingwater:IT=http://www.portaleacque.salute.gov.it/PortaleAcquePubblico/rest/download/sintesi/4796. This way you have flexibility to stay open for more other databases from arround the world (Malaysia, US, Australia, ...), find everything very fast by a simple search, and even create a mapping from local to EU IDs and back. The known URLs could be collected over time in a wiki page, allowing mappers to tag bathing sites even if they do not know the IDs yet: Look it up in the EU database, find the local URL in the dataset, search there for the local ID. Data users would also be independent of the EU list. --Trapicki (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I respectably disagree, refs à prefixed with a local area identifier, not suffixed. ref:EU:*=* is the right placeholder here. Fanfouer (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fanfouer: I went through the keys with ref and EU via [1] but could not find a clear pattern. I searched in the wiki, nothing found there. If you know some place where people agreed that ref:EU:bathingwater=* is preferred over ref:bathingwater:EU=*, I be very interested. Otherwise I still uphold my argument. --Trapicki (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trapicki: Not really sure... Those datasets are different on a regional basis and we don't really have an insight on them. Are you sure about this? It would kind of defeat the purpose of having a unified identifier tag. Would this really be worth having?--Emilius123 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not really understand your comment. "different on a regional basis"? "we don't really have an insight on them"? That was actually my point: If we do not know every possible connection, let's keep it flexible and extensible. Actually the local URLs are included in the EU data set, but as this is third party information, it should be represented in OSM independently. --Trapicki (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trapicki: Sorry, I don't really see your point here. Encouraging tagging these other, local datasets would lead to everything being much more complicated for everyone. If there is a unified identifier, why not use it? Also, in the EU dataset, not every bathing water has an unique URL, some are the same for entire regions. --Emilius123 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

On its own, "bathing water" is a specific EU directive and databse. It should be suffixed. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trapicki:, see ref:EU:ENTSOE_EIC=*, ref:EU:EVSE=*... many ref:FR:*=*, ref:UK:*=*. Usually, the name of the topic/database comes after the regional prefix for two main reasons: there can be several local databases for the same topic and we're using local prefixes to avoid collision between topic names Fanfouer (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I see the point: with the prefix ref:EU=* and BathingWaterIdentifier shortened to bwid, it is unique. Would be nice to have that last explanation of Fanfouer written down somewhere. --Trapicki (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional information

Disregard: Trapicki (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for information, not to discuss:

• The BathingWaterIdentifier hast to be a WISE (Water Information System for Europe) WFDProtectedArea, which is an ID for more generic water bodies.
• The EU Bathing Water Directive collects data for the EU, UK, Switzerland and Albania
• A map showing all bathing waters with last quality report encoded in color can be found at [2]. This may be helpfull to quickly find the bwid for a location. ref:EU:bwid=* can be opened in the map via the URL https://maps.eea.europa.eu/wab/StateOfBathingWaters/?query=BathingWater_Dyna_WM_2018_1356_0%2CmonitoringSiteIdentifier%2Cref:EU:bwid, for example Silbersee