Use Model To Describe fountains proposal

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Use fountain:design=* To Describe fountains proposal
Proposal status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Davidoskky
Draft started: 2022-10-11
RFC start: 2022-10-11
Vote start: 2022-11-20
Vote end: 2022-12-05


The key fountain:design=* should be used to describe amenity=fountain.

The current values fountain=toret, fountain=nasone, fountain=roman_wolf, fountain=wallace, fountain=viktorija_zdenac should be deprecated and tagged as fountain=drinking, fountain:design=*.

The key model=* was previously proposed in this proposal, but some issues with it arose. The main problem is that fountains with the same general design might be produced in different points in time and thus belong to different production models. Until now, nobody has been tagging specific production models of fountains and thus the introduction of such detail might be unnecessary.


The key fountain=* is used to describe the general use and shape of an amenity=fountain.

The values toret, nasone, roman_wolf, viktorija_zdenac and wallace do not describe the general feature but instead the specific design of the fountain.

All fountains belonging to these design look the same.

All of these fountains are drinking fountains, though it is impossible to understand that fountain=toret is a drinking fountain for someone who does not know the specific fountain design.

Including all possible designs of fountains under the fountain=* key will make such key substantially impossible to render due to the huge amount of values that could arise as it is common that different cities have their own design of fountains. (This is quite common in Italy and I'm afraid tagging just the Italian ones could mean hundreds of different values).

The key postbox:design=* which is already in use with over 8,000 objects tagged with it and the key building:design=* with 459 uses. In this case the fountain:design=* key can perfectly capture and improve the fountain tagging situation. All toret fountains look the same or have very minor variations, thus these all belong the the same design of drinking fountains.

Describing such fountains in this way will allow describing them as fountain=drinking, thus allowing anyone to understand what the main utility of the fountain is is and the fountain:design=* will allow retrieving information about the specific design of the fountain.

This will make it easier for renderers, since all of these fountains will fall under the drinking value, thus reducing complexity.


The key fountain:design=* should be used to tag models of drinking fountains. All fountains with the same model should look the same or present only minor differences.

This tag could be combined with the key manufacturer=* to provide information about the specific manufacturer of the fountain and with the key model=* to provide information about the specific model of that design.

  • The key fountain:design=* is introduced to describe the general design of a fountain.

The following values of fountain=* are marked as deprecated:

The key model=* can be used to describe the model of a fountain and the following values are approved:


Picture Tag
Nasona a via annia faustina 2.JPG
Toret - Monte dei capuccini.jpg
Roman wolf fountain.JPG
Drinking Fountain, The Wallace Collection, London W1 - - 1998551.jpg
Painted hand water pump in Zagreb, Eugena Podaubskog.jpg


Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Discussion is currently going on in the tagging mailing list

Please, discuss the appropriateness of the fountain:design=* key as opposed to design=* in the wiki talk page.


Please comment on the discussion page.


Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 13 votes for, 8 votes against and 1 abstention.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Davidoskky (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Good initiative!
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This proposal is unclear and appears to need more work before opening voting. The title says "Use model to describe fountains", but then the body of the proposal says not to use `model` but instead to use `fountain:design`. `fountain=drinking` is also promoted, would this proposal "approve" that tag as well? Multiple tags are also deprecated without mention of this in the title. -- Ezekielf (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry about that. I had already opened the proposal for the Model key and then I changed the proposal to address some problems which came up with that. Unfortunately, as far as I know, it's impossible to change the title of the page. Davidoskky (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Use the move page feature to change the page name -- Ezekielf (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about that, since the vote is already going on I won't do it in this case but I'll keep it in mind if I ever need to do this again. Davidoskky (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This proposal is not to approve fountain=drinking. Davidoskky (talk)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. The title should have been changed for less confusion, but it's still clear what the proposal is trying to do. --Tordanik 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This proposal does not give a meaningful reason why fountain=* must be changed. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Apart from errors mentioned above, there are real issues with deprecating existing tags, which I do not feel have been adequately (or at all) addressed here. Tidiness alone is IMHO not sufficient to outweigh problems that deprecating existing features cause. Also, in cases when specific type is not known, I prefer amenity=drinking_water to fountain=drinking (which seems to be promoted here) --mnalis (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I do know about the problems with deprecating old tags, I didn't write anything about it but I will indeed contact people who tagged those objects if the proposal is approved. I feel that is all that is necessary; these tags are used very sparingly and only in specific geographic areas, thus as long as new ones are not created with these tags, the existing ones may be left there without a mechanical edit and without creating huge extra work for taggers. I may go through the ones I know and change the tags. This proposal is not really about the tidiness of the data (which might really work out as tidy enough as it is) but more about clarity of tagging, since a lot of confusion is there about the fountain=* tag I believe it would be better to make it simpler to understand. Regarding using fountain=drinking rather than amenity=drinking_water, I purposefully did not specify the main tag in the tagging examples and thus I have no real preference on whether the main tag is amenity=fountain or amenity=drinking_water, the vote is not regarding this and does not wish to promote one over the other. Davidoskky (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. there is no reason to deprecate established fountain tags. —Dieterdreist (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I believe it is unnecessary to implement this. If you want to know the design of a drinking fountain, just use mapillary. --CatSu (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this a serious vote? Mapillary, really? Why bother to map at all if everything is on Mapillary, Google, Bing...? Geez... --AntMadeira (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a note, I do not wish to introduce these new features on OSM, these things are already mapped and present on the map. The main issue is the inconsistency in the fountain=* key generated by having these as values. Davidoskky (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Except for fountain=nasone at 751 instances, others are all at a dozen or some more. Are they significantly adopted at applications? This is a specialized attribute that can be moved out to free up fountain=* for more general attributes or other undeteremined use. --- 07:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I haven't sufficiently digged into this topic to vote no. But I have a feeling that more work has to be done. This proposal only renames existing tags, but the old tags already seem dubious in their meanings. viktorija_zdenac? That sounds like an artist_name=* rather than a design. What if people in the US paint a fountain? Do they call it a viktorija zdenac? I don't think so. Wallace foutains are also currently defined by their designer only, not their design. I am aware that this proposal is about the key, not the values, but if all the values are dubious, we need to question the key as well. The other thing I notice is that all of the sample images look like water taps. So how does amenity=fountain differ from man_made=water_tap? I guess that a fountain has a permanent flow of water, while a water_tap needs to be manually turned on by each user. What are the fountain designs that don't look like a water tap? Are there no tags for those? --Fkv (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice comment. Regarding your first doubt: all of those are design name and not designer names. The Wallace fountain were not designed by a man named Wallace and the Viktorija Zdenac was not designed by a woman named Viktorija. There is a bit of confusion on the correct use and distinction of the tag amenity=fountain, amenity=drinking_water, man_made=drinking_fountain and man_made=water_tap; this is why I do not specify which main key to use to describe such features. The key fountain=* may be used in combination with any of those at the current state of things. This proposal has the purpose of cleaning up and better define the key fountain=* with the hope of finding a better way to handle all of these tags in the future. Davidoskky (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
fountain=wallace says they were "designed by Charles-Auguste Lebourg in 1872". That means that anything not designed by that artist and in that year is not a wallace fountain. If Viktorija Zdenac is not the designer, who else is she? Why do we need to tag painted water taps in Zagreb differently than painted water taps in the US or in China? Why can't we just tag them with man_made=water_tap + tourism=artwork + artwork_type=painting, regardless or their location? How does fountain=toret differ from other fountains, other than being located in Torino? Actually, ALL the values you are prosposing to migrate have the object location in their definition. This is just wrong. A city is not a design. --Fkv (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Designs are indeed made by designers. Not necessarily the fountain has to be built by the designer or during his lifespan, but the design is indeed made by someone. It can be updated over time and as long as it doesn't change too much it remains the same design. Now, as to why do we need this tag; I have no real specific answer to this, these tags already exist and throwing them away would mean losing information. How does fountain=toret differ from other fountains? - It has a different and recognizable design; Torets are famous tourist attractions. Not all fountains in Torino are Torets, thus the distinction is useful. Painted water taps in Zagreb all share the same design, which may not be the same thing happening in the US. Cities are not designs, but you have objects with particular designs in particular cities; I don't see what is wrong about this. Davidoskky (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
These tags exist, as do spelling errors, but with how many instances? 36x toret, 18x roman_wolf, 11x wallace, 60x viktorija_zdenac. That's nothing compared to 152000x amenity=fountain and 269000x amenity=drinking_water. Only nasone has hundreds of instances, but many of those were created by the same user as the wiki page, and who declared it a "de-facto" standard at the same time. In my opinion, those pages should be deleted altogether until someone comes up with proper definitions, which would contain more than just "these are in my home city". If people want to tag distinguishable designs, they should to be able to explain how they can be distinguished. --Fkv (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand your criticism and this vote is being done exactly to address this; the only alternative would be to just deprecate those tags, but that would lead to a loss of information, generate a lot of discord and probably would never be approved. The idea of this new key is to allow people to tag the design of the fountains in their city, since someone is definitely interested in doing that, without polluting the fountain=* key. As to how to distinguish those designs, frankly I believe that's not really necessary, those designs are well defined and recognized; local people do call those fountains with those names and those fountains are clearly recognizable from fountains found in other places; this may be something strange to you, but in Italy fountains are integral part of everyday life and people actually do care about their design and prefer one over the other, I don't know about other countries though. It's unlikely that someone from other places will go around and try to tag those without knowing them. The fact that the explanation on the wiki is not extremely detailed about how to recognize those fountains doesn't mean that the value isn't well defined, a nasone is a well defined name for nasone fountains and anyone living in Rome does recognize that name and understand its meaning. Moving these values to fountain:design=* will let everybody else, who doesn't know what is a fountain=nasone to understand that those are actually drinking fountains. You have a wikipedia page about that particular fountain design which describes it. Davidoskky (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Tag definitions should be in the OSM wiki, not in Wikipedia. Nasone means big nose, doesn't it? People often use such words from their own language when they don't know how an English translation. For some terms like german "Anrainerverkehr", "Erdstall" or "Luftschutzstollen", no translations exist because those things don't exist in English speaking countries. But water taps exist everywhere in the world, and there are English terms for outlets, handles etc. All of those designs can be defined by their properties and those properties can be translated into english tag values. I already mentioned artwork_type=painting. If you want to create a key for local terms for water taps, you'd better call it water_tap:local_term instead of fountain:design. --Fkv (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
A lot of tag definitions are not in the OSM wiki and there is no requirement for that as long as the tag is well defined with a clear and understandable meaning. Nasone does mean big nose. These are not the local names for fountain, which should not be tagged at all since OSM is not a dictionary. These are the names of those kinds of fountains, only those specific fountains with that design can be called in that way; not all fountains in Rome are a Nasone. All Nasone share the same common properties, such as the central cylinder and the long pipe from which water comes out. There is no English translation for these names because these are the proper names of those designs; as an example, if you had tagged some land as growing Merlot that would be correct even though the word is not English and downgrading that to grapes just because the word is English or because "there's no difference between grapes in France and in the US" would mean losing information. You may look at all the values of post_box:design, such as type_a, type_b, type_c, type_k; the mechanism is similar; in this key you would tag the specific design of the post box. If you have no interest in tagging the specific design of the fountain, you're not forced to do it. I don't see the relation with artwork=painting since these are neither works of art nor paintings, just fountains which look in a particular way. Davidoskky (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Even the user who invented the fountain=nasone tag doesn't seem to know exactly what it means, as he tagged at least one that doesn't conform to his own definition, see Talk:Tag:fountain=nasone#Definition. --Fkv (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Tag:fountain=nasone#Definition made up my mind. I now have to change my vote to "no" because the proposed new key comes with no valid values. --Fkv (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You did not invest 2 seconds to verify your wild guesses (e.g. that the zagreb fountain is about an artist name or a painted fountain. Pictures are there to illustrate tags but they are always just instances of a tag which usually has a wider range than the single photo. Of course this fountain type is not about a painted fountain but about an actual fountain type, see for example here: [1]Dieterdreist (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It will sooner or later be up to the admins to clean up the discussions from your insults and the feature pages from your bogus tags that you self-declared as "de-facto" standards without even caring for reasonable definitions. I have said all that can be said on this topic and I will not reply again to your personal attacks. --Fkv (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See above. I approve the deprecation of fountain=toret/nasone/roman_wolf/wallace/viktorija_zdenac, but I disapprove the new key. --Fkv (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Puts niche data into a subtag and frees up fountain=* for more useful information. --Eginhard (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. fountain=drinking is being used to describe the water quality. There are two other tags to this exact save thing, amenity=drinking_water and drinking_water=yes}!!! Does OSM really need a third? Possibly 'model' or 'design' could be better expressed as 'structure'? Fountain in OSM is taken as an old meaning, that may not be the best way to tag these things. --Warin61 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand the problem you're describing. Note that fountain=drinking is used to describe the main use of the fountain and that it's already in use. I thought about model and design, model was actually the original key I proposed for this, but neither was really appropriate to describe a general style of fountains which may contain some differences over the years, a model is something very specific and that wouldn't work out as currently nobody is making that kind of distinction. Davidoskky (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Structure would be something extremely general and difficult to interpret in a way to describe the currently existing tags. Davidoskky (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Reino Baptista (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. see Eginhard's justification --Michi (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mariusz256 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mcliquid (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I support moving this niche tag, it totally makes sense. Plus I like the symmetry with other *:design= tag Babouche Verte (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --LySioS (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. While I consider moving the values in question to some subtag a good idea, I'm against another tag for drinking water source --Rmikke (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Thibaultmol (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)