Proposal:EU Bathing water information
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal EU Bathing water Identifier is located at Key:ref:EU:bwid |
The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.
See on Template:Archived proposal how one may mark older proposal version to provide easy link for viewing archived content. (quick hint: {{Archived proposal|archive_id=}})
| EU Bathing water Identifier | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Emilius123 |
| Tagging: | ref:EU:bwid=* |
| Applies to: |   
|
| Definition: | A bathing water's bathingWaterIdentifier in the EEA's dataset |
| Draft started: | 2021-11-07 |
| RFC start: | 2021-11-08 |
| Vote start: | 2021-11-22 |
| Vote end: | 2021-12-06 |
Proposal
The EU Bathing Waters Directive requires Member States to identify popular bathing places in fresh and coastal waters and monitor them.[1] The dataset is held by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and, as required, contains all popular bathing locations (and their monitorings) in all EU member states, the Albania, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. These include bathing sites at rivers, lakes and bays/beaches. It is publicly available.
In the dataset, every bathing site is identified by a unique bathingWaterIdentifier.[2] This identifier is not only found in the dataset, but often given on government websites. It can also be resolved into a URL: https://maps.eea.europa.eu/wab/StateOfBathingWaters/?query=BathingWater_Dyna_WM_2018_1356_0%2CmonitoringSiteIdentifier%2C + ref:EU:bwid.
This unique bathingWaterIdentifier should be tagged by ref:EU:bwid=*. It should be tagged on the thing that would be identified as the "bathing site". In case of lakes, mostly the lakes itself, in case of coastal or river bathing, probably the bay/beach. As a rule of thumb, the bathing site should be the OSM object carrying the site's name.
Rationale
The tag relevant as the bathingWaterIdentifier practically is the government identifier. By it, the bathing site can be found in the EEA's dataset, which contains very relevant information about the water quality.
Tagging
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ref:EU:bwid | The objects bathingWaterIdentifier, as in the EEA's dataset |
| url:bathing_water | A URL to the objects government information website, as in the EEA's dataset |
Examples
Correct usage on the bathing water: Silbersee, Nachtweideweiher
Correct usage on the bathing site: Canottieri, Platja del Moll Grec
External discussions
First discussed on: Tagging mailing list.
Comments
Please leave your comments on the discussion page.
References
Voting
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 9 votes for, 0 votes against and 4 abstentions.
I approve this proposal. --Emilius123 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I approve of having a tag, but with 'bwid' you've chosen both an oxymoron (an id with the letters 'id' in) and an abbreviation rather than ref:EU:bathing_water mentioned in the list discussion Jnicho02 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- You meant "pleonasm", when you wrote "oxymoron"? Nevertheless, ref is mostly understood, to point at an identifier in a third party database, so the argument holds.--Hungerburg (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Think you forgot to poll url=*, with https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-November/062845.html asking for website=*. They are both odd. url=* is unspecific, and you are linking to files directly in half the examples. Would be nice to have document:url=http://www.portaleacque.salute.gov.it/PortaleAcquePubblico/rest/download/sintesi/4796, like image=* and related_law=*; leaving website=https://badeseen.rlp-umwelt.de/servlet/is/1172 for actual pages. On top of above comments, using both *:EU:bwid=* and *:bathing_water=* is inconsistent. ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I second previous comments. This is a good proposal I surely vote for, with 15 more days of discussion regarding id and URls. It's good to spend time for proposals, to make them robust and future proof. Fanfouer (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. As somebody, not having a hard time, but still having to get used to this kind of reverse polish notation, that comes with "namespace:prefixes", I'd prefer more similarity betweeen the two highly interconnected new tags - ref:EEA_bathing_water + url:EEA_bathing_water - might make the correspondence immediately obvious without consulting much documentation.--Hungerburg (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good idea, thanks for documenting it. --501ghost (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. While not explained in the proposal, both the choice for the tag names and the ref-structure where explained in the discussion. The result of the discussion was not transfered back into the proposal before voting, this is later hopefully fixed in the wiki documentation of the tags. --Trapicki (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)