From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

How to add more detailed information?

As of 2013-09-22 the page contains the request to add more detailed information, e.g. drinkable, hot, salty, ... I have no idea how to do so i.e. which tags I shall use for that - would be nice if someone could add links / tag names :-)

Spring areas?

You're proposing single dots for springs, but a lot of rivers emerge in bigger fields: lots of small places where water comes out of the ground, like tens of small springs in a swampy area that merge to one small river. That area is still seen as one spring, but it can't really be pinpointed as one dot... --Eimai 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, natural=spring is used over 1000 times on polygons meanwhile, I'd recommend to remove the 'node only' from the tag description. Large springs can discharge several cubical meters per second, the are clearly areas. --Polarbear w (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please create tags for additional information you mentioned, they are IMHO very valuable. Also it should be possible to tag whether the spring is covered ( --*Martin*, 27 October 2010

Hot springs

--Hamish 06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

spring water collector

I am unsure about the correct term... Some springs are cased in concrete, and the water is supplied to some drinking water network. Standing in front of the spring, you can hear the noise of the water, but you can't see it, touch it, or drink it. How are we supposed to tag this kind of springs?

I think man_made=water_works will fit. --Rudolf (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent change to natural=spring

Hi Rudolf, noticed this. Are you aware that a way to specify mud, saltwater and similar is part of the natural=hot_spring proposal ? Would be good to keep it together, or perhaps the "water_characteristics" should be split into an own proposal as it should be generally useful for many other situations?

Also, in the mentioned edit you have removed a few generic tags which might come handy when describing things related to springs, was this intended? RicoZ (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed features should be discussed in a separate proposal-page, not in a tag-page of another feature. It is common usage to add a link in chapter "See also".
It was my intention to move some proposed additions from "Tagging" to "Proposed additions". There were also some tags without direct relation to tagging of a "spring", such as "beach_resort" and "nudism". This tags were added without discussion and without comment. I removed these. --Rudolf (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It is fine tom move things like mud/saltwater to a different proposal but it seemed like you were possibly duplicating things which are already in the hot spring proposal without indicating this clearly enough.
As of the other tags - swimming, beach_resort etc they are not new features so they don't need voting or approval. They should be mentioned on this page if the pointers are useful frequently enough when mapping springs. There might be a better selection of "related features" but generally I think every page should have such a section. In this case it might be a good idea to have a page "water related leisure/sports/amenities" which would collect pointers to all the types of baths, beaches, resorts and whatever else might be handy. RicoZ (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the duplicated items. As said, proposed tags should be mentioned in a proposal-page not on a tag-page.
Springs are generally small features located in a rural environment. "beach_resort" or "nudism" has no direct relation to "natural=spring". So it is not auxiliary to mention these elements on this page. --Rudolf (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you have missed the duplicate items/proposal is imho proof enough that the proposal should be mentioned in the place where it is relevant. Imo it should be clearly marked as proposal to avoid confusion and have a summary that is sufficiently informative to avoid such mishaps. RicoZ (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You are fully right. The proposal should be mentioned in the place where it is relevant, that is the proposal-page.--Rudolf (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "sport=swimming"

sport=swimming has no direct relation to "natural=spring". It may be an addition to "natural=water". I propose to remove this addition. --Rudolf (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable chance that someone mapping a spring will want to know how to map "swimming"? I think yes. So why would you want to remove a useful pointer to another wiki page? RicoZ (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think no. As said, sport=swimming has no direct relation to "natural=spring". It may be an addition to "natural=water". Springs are generally small features located in a rural environment. Normally you cannot swim in a spring. Perhaps you can swim in a lake or river around the spring. Then it is better to put your swimming-tag to that element. --Rudolf (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
As you say most springs are small features located in a rural environment. But mappers will not map those small insignificant springs very often as they are hard to find and rarely worth mapping. So of those springs which are mapped a fair share is relevant for swimming or as tourist attraction.
True, you will not swim in the spring itself but in a pool around the spring. So the page should mention how to map this properly. RicoZ (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you show us a significant number of springs, relevant for swimming or pools? I don't know anyone.--Rudolf (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be plenty. During the recent discussions of the hot spring proposal on the mailing list bathing facilities did take a prominent share of the discussion.
I think it would be best to link to a single wiki page describing things related to water, swimming and similar instead of the current state of having a bunch of links on every page. But until that is done please don't delete stuff here. RicoZ (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
While you state only assumptions, I did some research. I searched the database for "natural=spring" + "sport=swimming". There are in total 9 nodes and 1 way. Most of them are tagged "amenity=swimming_pool". We have in total >47000 tags of "nature=spring". The quote 10 out of 47000 is negligible. There is no need for any mention on this page.
There is already a page with Bathing. Perhaps you can express your opinions on that page.
BTW I'm one of those mappers who map those small insignificant springs. IMO they are not rarely worth mapping. --Rudolf (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Proposed additions"

Proposed features should be discussed on a proposal-page, not a tag-page. I propose to remove the chapter "Proposed additions". A link to the proposal is sufficient. Maybe the proposed features could find place on this talk-page. --Rudolf (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It could be shortened but should have an overview what it is about. RicoZ (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Add seasonal as a useful combination

In some climates, springs can be dry in the summer/dry season. In such climates, it is important to know which springs get dry and which do not.

For this purpose, I suggest including the seasonal=* tag in the Tags to use in combination section of the wiki page.

seasonal=no indicates a year-long active spring, seasonal=yes indicates a seasonal spring, and seasonal=winter/wet_season/... indicates the active season of the spring. Zstadler (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)