Proposal:Water tap
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Tordanik in topic Voting
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal water_tap is located at Tag:man_made=water_tap |
| water_tap | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Kotya |
| Tagging: | man_made=water_tap
|
| Applies to: | node |
| Definition: | For all kinds of water taps |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | picture (water tap without glass) |
| Draft started: | 2014-09-01 |
| RFC start: | 2014-10-10 |
| Vote start: | 2014-12-30 |
| Vote end: | 2015-01-15 |
Proposal
This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards.
Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be further specified with drinking_water=yes|no.
Tagging
The proposal is to introduce a man_made=water_tap tag.
It will be analogous to man_made=water_well and combinable with drinking_water=*.
It should not be used to tag fire hydrants, for which a special emergency=fire_hydrant tag is available.
Rationale
The aim of this proposal is to address issues discussed in the help site[1][2] and in the forum[3]. In summary, there is currently no way to describe a water tap providing non-drinking water.
It will also be used to tag a source of potentially potable water if potability is not known and thus amenity=drinking_water cannot be used.
This tag would supplement:
natural=springWater flowing out of the ground. May have a fountain built around it (see Roman Bath in Bath, U.K)man_made=water_wellA man made excavation in the ground to gain water from an aquifer.amenity=drinking_waterLocation of a tap or other source of potable drinking waterpump=*
Need for this tag
Currently more than 600 elements could have been marked better if this value existed:
| Element | Number of use cases | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Name = Water tap | 59 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| seamark:small_craft_facility:category = water_tap | 24 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| Name = Tap water | 13 | - |
| Name = tap water | 24 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| Name = water tap | 7 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| Name = Water Tap | 6 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| Tap = yes | 351 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/tap#values |
| Facilities = Tap water | 2 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| _Descrip_ = Public water tap (not good for drinking) | 7 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=water_tap#values |
| yes | 73 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/harbour%3Awater_tap#values |
| node name = tap | 49 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Tap |
| value = tap | 6 | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/waterpoint_type#values |
Voting
Note: Voting was closed on 2015-01-15 with 11 approval votes and 5 opposing votes.
If you vote against the proposal and you haven't participated in the discussion in tagging (at) openstreetmap.org, please post a message there too explaining your reasoning.
I approve this proposal. I think we've had an extensive and long enough discussion to consider all points of view and allow all interested people to participate. We will discuss water quality specification separately. --Kotya (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Long discussion of sub tags for tap characteristics. These are delaying the implementation of this tag. Hence this simple proposal - ignoring the discussion on characteristics (potability, height, on/off method, spigot etc) . Warin61 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. AlaskaDave (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) I would have voted earlier but wanted to avoid the "long discussion of sub tags" - this looks like a good addition.
- I approve this proposal. JB (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) (sorry for the previous message, don't know how I read the proposal… twice…)
- I approve this proposal.Javbw (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Your proposal started with non potable water (which is still mentionned in some sections) but now the summary speaks about drinkable=yes/no. This is confusing and enters directly in colision with the long standing tag amenity=drinking_water. Please clarify this in your descripion and even better, in the tag value itself, that it is exclusively reserved for non-drinkable water source and nothing else. --Pieren (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. I think this is well defined enough and don't quite see the collision that Pieren is pointing at, more I believe that a lot of
amenity=drinking_waterare actually mistagged SimonPoole (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC) - I oppose this proposal. I think this should be under "amenity" rather than "man_made". HillWithSmallFields (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. We use terms "Колонка" (google "колонка вода") and ru:водоразборная колонка for these objects in Russian language. Problem amenity/man_made is irrelevant, there no overlap with any existing tags. Xxzme (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I think it is good that this proposal is generic (all kind of water taps) and in the
man_made=*key (to avoid a conflict with the establishedamenity=drinking_water). There clearly is some overlap with the drinking_water tag, but at least it is compatible to tag both, and this tag allows to be more specific for a certain type of drinking water delivering feature: a tap. --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC) - I approve this proposal. Rafmar (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Your proposal, while I understand the reasons why you are presenting it, is not mature and in its present form only creates additional confusion. We need an overall review of water-supply related tags. --voschix (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal is still a mess. This proposal does not coordinate with existing and robust drinking water mapping efforts. It's not clear what the difference between a well and a tap is: or that it matters. Is the use case finding drinking water? Flower water? With a muddy use case, the tags just create tagging confusion. -- Brycenesbitt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The recommendation to use drinking_water=yes does not fit in with popular tags such as amenity=drinking_water and is likely to create more confusion than it solves. --Tordanik 13:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
