Talk:Key:drinking water

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Do not use drinking_water=no with amenity=drinking_water

The main page should clarify that drinking_water=no should not be used as a modifier to amenity=drinking_water, since one of those is always assumed to provide potable water. Taps for non-potable water demand their own class of amenity. There's a more general principle at work here: OSM tags on a single object should never be self-contradictory; see the argument at disused=*. --achadwick 12:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Do we need this value?

In February 2014 it is used 10 times out of 3082.

This value don't say anything about the seasons. Is there water in the summer or in the winter? Without this additional information the tag is not very helpful.

--Rudolf (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is required then a method of mapping it needs to be suggested. As it is conditional then the Conditional restrictions scheme could be used. For example drinking_water:conditional=yes @ summer. Warin61 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion 'seasonal' is not needed. While I'm unsure about drinking_water:conditional=, because this suggests, that there is always water, but only of drinking-quality at given condition, I'd like to mention 'intermittent=*' for temporal unavailability, which is used for waterways and natural=spring already.

--Tudacs (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


I'm sorry: I've missed the voting proposal. April was too busy... I would have approved, with some conditions.

I'm not at ease with drinking_water:legal=* because the value drinking_water:legal=no would imply that it is forbiden to drink the water. And off course, it is not the case. There is no access:legal=*, nor maxspeed:legal=*. see Talk:Proposed features/drinkable

I'm very more in favour of values suggesting that the water can be drunk at your own risk, and describing the risk. I suggested values that are already in use and was discussed in several lists or forum : not_surveyed_spring, rainwater_tank, catched_spring... Maybe those values are bad French translation and could be better, but the principle is there.

The solution with an intermediate value like drinking_water=conditional and a tag explaining the condition drinking_water:condition=boiled/filterd or so... or explaining the context drinking_water:type=rainwater_tank/not_surveyed_spring or so, seems better to me.

The tag drinking_water:legal=* is still not used. So I suggest to avoid it.

--FrViPofm (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The tag drinking_water:legal=* shows the legal situation and depends mostly on the laws of the related country. Noone is forced to use this tag. There is no problem with creating additional tags as drinking_water:condition=* or drinking_water:type=*. One question: where do you find boiled water? --Rudolf (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The values 'boiled' and 'filtered' should be 'boil' and filter' as instructions to make the water drinkable. A possible addition is the value 'grey_water'? (User Warin61:Warin61) February 2015 (UTC)

Should this tag be used to distinguish water qualities? If that was the case, values such as grey_water would imply that it is NOT drinking water as it can contain chemical residues and other contaminations not possible to filter or sterilise with boiling. --Skippern (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It does distinguish between water quality - yes/no is a coarse answer. So called 'grey water' can be processed to produce drinking water - lot of work to do it. The question then becomes if mappers want the finer detail between yes/no. Renders can chose to take yes as yes and every thing else as no, or use the finer detail. For me the ones I would like to see are boil/filter/filter;boil. Warin61 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


From taginfo this values is 'inuse'. Is it assumed that the treatment is to a safe level for drinking? If so why not use the tag drinking_water=yes? Warin61 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's about drinking water that was obtained but to use it safely, especially in summer, it needs to be disinfected with, for example, a little chlorine. It's a common way of water treatment.
I think Treatment=yes>drinking_water=yes/drinking_water:legal=yes. Treatment=no>drinking_water=boil I think that treatment=yes/no tag can be a more convenient tag from drinking_water:legal=yes/no (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm moving this section down in the page, because the page is listed as an approved tag, but this value was not part of the proposal and is barely used. It's confusing when a value is added to a list of approved values. Please make a proposal for these values if you think they are needed. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


From taginfo this values is 'inuse'. I would take this to mean that the water quality is unknown. Could be taken as the same as drinking_water=no to be safe. Warin61 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the same "I would take this to mean that the water quality is unknown". maybe better more appropriate drinking_water=conditional or drinking_water=boil Because you do not know too much about where water was obtained rather not from the water supply network. Maybe from the well in the village.(User talk:Cz ja) 07:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm moving this section down in the page, because the page is listed as an approved tag, but this value was not part of the proposal and is rarely used. Please make a proposal for these values if you think they are needed. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)