Talk:Proposed features/water tap

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion started 2014-10-10.

My main idea is that we should tag the actual objects, like wells and taps, rather then what they give like "drinking water". The latter should then become a property of an object.

This tag seems to be missing to tag uniformly all water sources. --Kotya (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/.

Discussion in the mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/019618.html

amenity=drinking_water

You should explain how your proposal interacts with the existing amenity=drinking_water. When we read your text, it looks like it would deprecate the former. --Pieren (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid point. Done. I suggest deprecating the combination amenity=drinking_water + drinking_water=no only. --Kotya (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Replace man_made with amenity

Following suggestions at http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/, I have replaced man_made=* key with amenity=*. --Kotya (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Replace amenity with man_made

Martin has suggested in the mailing list, that man_made could be a more appropriate option:

Being made amenity, water_tap becomes incompatible to be tagged on a node with amenity=drinking_water. If the value shall remain a generic "water_tap" I'd stick to man_made to keep these compatible (see also man_made=water_well for instance, which is a similar feature somehow). Please note that amenity=drinking_water is highly introduced and used by many data consumers. This is an established tag that is used for almost seven years now. link

I suggest choosing one option during voting, unless we find a better solution by then. --Kotya (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential confusion: is water potable?

I'm really concerned about potential confusion. The name "amenity=water_tap" doesn't tell us it is non-drinking water, though I understand from your proposal that's what you mean. (If I understand right, you're proposing amenity=water_tap for non-drinking water, and keep amenity=drinking_water for the water that is drinkable.) I know it's a bit awkward but have you considered a more explicit tag such as amenity=non_drinking_water? --Danstowell (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Danstowell, I agree with your concern, but I don't like either solution too much. In general, I'd like to have a more tree-like structure: amenity=water, drinkable=*, type=fountain|tap|water_well|... This would be a general improvement, but I don't know how realistic it is to introduce such a change. --Kotya (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing: overlap with drinking_water

The overlap between this and drinking_water is a problem. I think a non-overlapping definition is better (e.g. amenity=nonpotable_water). Brycenesbitt (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Following the discussion in the tagging list, the proposal will be changed to include more options. Here is the current state of discussion:

«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.»

--Kotya (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we use this tag for

  • I would say so. --Kotya (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)