Proposed features/Pumping proposal/1st vote session

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

First vote of this proposal lasts 5 days between November 19 to November 25.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This detailed proposal is going to deprecate the fairly common tags pump=no, pump=powered and pump=manual which are used with man_made=water_well and widely used in low-income countries where these wells are the most common source of clean drinking and cooking water. Instead the key would be changed to specify "the mechanical design of the pump" such as "pump=centrifugal". However, the mechanical design of a pump is often not visible from the surface of a well or the outside of a pump, unless you have extensive technical knowledge. The examples on this proposal show a hand pump and a windpump and we are expected to guess that these are piston-operated, but how can the be proven? This would make the new tag difficult to verify for ordinary mappers. In contrast, the current values pump=manual and pump=powered are easy: you just need to know if it is a hand pump or if there is a motor, which is obvious by the presence of electrical wires, or the sound of an engine or motor. (Also see my comments on the Talk page). --Jeisenbe (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This proposal does not state a clear rationale as to why the existing pump=* scheme must be deprecated and cannot simply be expanded upon with additional values and/or sub-keys. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. You want to deprecate pump=powered and none of examples specify how new tagging will work here. It is also unclear why this values even need to be deprecated - why not use pump_mechanism=* for people interested in deep detail and people utterly uninterested in such detail would keep using current pump=* tag with over 18k uses. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking into it: pump=powered tagging (specifying that pump is powered, without specifying how) would become impossible if following this proposal ("according pump=* + according mechanical_driver=* + according mechanical_coupling=*"). This make it utterly unacceptable. Any tagging scheme allowing to tag extreme detail uninteresting to nearly all people must allow also tagging basic info without making mandatory to specify details. And this proposal would make tagging "this pump is powered, not sure how" completely impossible, what worse it would take over pump=* key. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Talk

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Cyrille37 (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC) For oppositions, keep in mind that "man_made=pump" steel the first and simple tag :-) the proposal makes it possible to enrich while keeping the original tag.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lejun (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JacquesLavignotte (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --DenisHelfer (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. In the proposal I am missing any reference to the widely-used man_made=pumping_station.Looking at the proposal and the pump wiki page it seems that many of the industrial pumps shown in the illustrations are part of pumping stations. Also Redefining a widely used technical tag like pump=* (> 30k) will only damage the data. --voschix (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A pumping station is a building, a pump is a device inside a station, this proposal won't do anything to pumping stations. Fanfouer (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. And this proposal would make tagging "this pump is powered, not sure how not sure it helps to know that it's powered but not how. --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the standard way that you map a water well which has an powered pump in developing countries. It's very easy to tell the 3 main categories apart: a water_well with pump=no is just a hole in the ground, and you use a bucket to get water. A pump=manual is a traditional mechanical pump with a handle, which you move up and down to get water out of the well. And a pump=powered has some kind of motor, usually electric but sometime diesel or gasoline. Humanitarian mapping campaigns and local mappers in countries where most clean water comes from simple wells have developed these tags because it's quite nice to know if you need a bucket to get water or if you have to pump it out by hand, versus water that come out with the flip of a switch or turn of spigot. It's quite disappointing that Europeans who have never depended on a well for their drinking water are suggesting deprecation of these tags used thousands of times. --Jeisenbe (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my guess is that in developing countries, it's quite easy to know if it's electric powered or Diesel powered, exactly as in Europe. --Nospam2005 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It's easy enough if you survey it in person, up close. But there are already 4600 pump=powered - - who is going to re-survey them? And to determine if it is electric or diesel you have to get up close to the pump. If you just see that there is a pipe coming out of the well and that there is running water from a faucet, you know there is a pump=powered, but you have to find the pump shelter to see if it is electric or not, or at least see electric wires running down into the well. This requires getting quite close, whereas you can tell if it is a manual pump or no pump vs powered just from a distance of 50 meters, e.g. across a schoolyard. This is why pump=powered should not be deprecated - it is still helpful when you don't know the details --Jeisenbe (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. In general, I support your impressive efforts to bring more systematic into the pump scheme and I am very sorry that I did not bring my criticism into the discussion process before. You should definitely continue to follow this scheme. However, a pump scheme must allow the "common mapper" to make a simple and immediately recognizable distinction without knowledge about pumps, because I cannot expect him to take a closer look at how pumps work. This distinction is provided by the existing pump=manual/powered, but it is this distinction that is to be deprecated. I cannot agree with this. (Note that an ordinary user will fall back on presets or self-explanatory, everyday values and don't can go deeper into different pump values). Special attributes must be compatible with simpler ones and must be based on them. Why not leave "pump" as it is for simple distinctions and extend "pump:type", "pump:driver" and "pump:coupling" for more specific information? I maintain about 2000 emergency water pumps in the OSM database in Berlin (see here) and unfortunately I have often experienced that new (and even experienced) OSM users have trouble with even simple distinctions. The result is worse instead of better data. The new scheme could probably make this situation drastically worse.--Supaplex030 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What would prevent a replacement with man_made=pump and mechanical_driver=yes (or no), powered as suggested by Zorglubu is fine too.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. even if I miss a more general tag like "mechanical_driver=powered" to replace the "pump=powered" --Zorglubu (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. even if I miss mechanical_driver=shadok in the list of proposed values --Don-vip (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Regardless of the merits of or absence of them in this proposal: reusing an existing and in use tag key with different incompatible values is a no-no on first principles.SimonPoole (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While the tagging for technical details of pumps is impressive and welcomed, the deprecation of in use tag keys in exchange with highly specialized values is not appropiate to current use around the world.--kartonage (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This is generally a well documented and detailed proposal, but I vote no because I see no reason to deprecate the existing pump tag values. If you prefer different values for pump details, use a different key rather than forcing everybody to change their tagging. Current pump values are simple, the proposed new values seem to be more suitable for a second detail level. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Regarding the transition from pump=powered to slightly more precise categories (combustion vs electric), I think this is an important distinction to have, especially in less developped areas. An electrically-powered pump is easily distinguishable from a combustion-powered one, just by noise or by the presence of a tank. And operationnaly those two have very different properties : one must have a permanent electricity supply, while the other will be autonomous for some time, but pollutes and is noisy. So it's reasonable to require mappers to use this tag when mapping, in order to provide meaningful data to consumers. Thank you for the proposal fanfouer ! --Gileri (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. After testing the ease-of-access/understandability of a possible iD (the most-used editors for new mappers) Pump Preset, I think it is easy enough for new mappers to understand the difference between a manual and powered (electrical motor, combustion engine) pump driver. I understand the complaints made by the people above that a more general tag for differentiating manual and powered pumps should remain, however, after comparing the terminology of "driver" vs. "pump", I think the current proposal gives a specific and realistic definition that explains the mechanical function of a pump (pump=* is just a generic term). OSM is going to and should have more technical tags in the future and I think that this is a good step forward in that direction. Also, iD always gives the user the choice to use the Field description button if they are not sure about what an Field is for.
You can see my iD Pump Preset example here.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While very well-documented, this is a very technical and overly complicated proposal which lends itself poorly to regular mapping and requires specialist knowledge of the inner workings of pumps to be useful. It would be better to use new specialised keys for this type of information rather than deprecating and causing conflicts with the current usage of pump. As others have suggested, "pump:type", "pump:driver" and "pump:coupling" (or similar keys) are good alternatives. Riiga (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I have the same concerns that were already raised by others who reject this proposal. Tagging a pump should not require in-depth knowledge about pump technology aside from 'there is a pump here' and 'it works automatically'/'i have to pump myself', which are the most important questions for anyone actually using the pump. How a pump works is of secondary concern. There should be an option to tag the inner workings of a pump like this proposal attempts, but doing so by replacing commonly used tags is a really bad idea. --Woazboat (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
What in-depth knowledge knowledge are we talking about? This classification is from Wikipedia, anyone can read and understand but nobody is forced to use extensive tagging as it's optional. Fanfouer (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As other comments already noted, tagging a powered pump (pump=powered) is impossible with this proposal without knowledge of the exact power source that is driving the pump (i.e. knowing the exact value for mechanical_driver=*). That is a rather severe disadvantage of this scheme and an unnecessary regression. Studying Wikipedia should not be required to tag the simple fact that a pump is powered. The exact mechanism that powers a pump may not even be visible at all, making it impossible to tag. --Woazboat (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, only some minor changes are required to fix this tagging scheme and resolve the issues that were brought up: 1) Don't replace the widely used pump=* tag with a different meaning. Leave the tag like it is and use a different tag instead (pump:mechanism=*/pump:method=*/pump:technology=*/... ) 2) Use mechanical_driver=* as supplementary/incremental detail for pump=powered (e.g. man_made=water_well + pump=powered + mechanical_driver=combustion_engine) --Woazboat (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The documentation is really good, but the naming of the tag's isn't the best. pump=* is already a widely used tag so I suggest using a different one, such as pump_mechanism=*/pump_mechanism=*, it's alot more descriptive too. Using namespaces would be another good thing, it makes it more organised and has benefits such as avoiding future tag issues, sorting in editors and it makes it obvious what tags relate. --GoodClover (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote is now closed as numerous issues have to be solved. Proposal is back in RFC and a new vote will be held in coming weeks