subject:"\[Tagging\] RFC \- More sensible values for fountain=\*"




why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a tap? 
if it isn’t a tap it will not help if it had one.


I'm not sure about anything anymore...

Maybe it is not a fountain, the problem is that I have no idea how that 
could be tagged with the current tagging scheme.


It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since 
it is not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a 
spring anyway.



If this is still about laundry sinks, I suggest to not see them as fountains.
No, this is not for laundry; the specific use of this fountain is not 
exactly clear to me but I guess mostly to provide water for cleaning 
houses and watering plants.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


On 12/10/22 10:32, Warin wrote:
I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is 
the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys 
.. etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of 
water simply by its shape. 
No, it does not contain any significant level of water; but I don't 
exclude a pipe can be added to increase the water level.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


it is a historic fountain that IMHO clearly is decorative


In my opinion the fountain is neither historic nor decorative.

It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that 
could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's 
just an old fountain.


I don't think it is decorative, it's a fountain in a small village which 
was probably used to refresh people, get water for cleaning and watering 
plants. Probably houses around didn't have running water until recently 
and this is what they used.



Probably the division between decorative and utility fountains is futile 
since it can be interpreted in many different ways. We might simply fall 
back to amenity=fountain when no better definition is available. The 
general understanding, as far as I understood by reading your replies, 
is that amenity=fountain refers only to decorative fountains. However, 
the wiki clearly states that amenity=fountain refers to any fountain 
that has some kind of "recreational" utility.


A fountain with cultural, decorational or historical significance or 
which serves a *recreational* purpose.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


On 12/10/22 10:36, Warin wrote:


Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some 
misunderstandings and ease migration? 


I was thinking about fountain:design since style is a generic attribute 
that might be interpreted in many different ways.


What do you mean by fountain:function? Do you mean tagging 
fountain:function=drinking? Then what would you tag fountain=* with?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-12 Thread Warin



On 11/10/22 22:38, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :

On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" 
that would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant 
values to describe the known cases 
We would need to approve that certain keys are moved from fountain=* 
to model=* 


on this point: yes
and I think this should be a fairly simple proposal and likely to be 
accepted since it avoids multiple meanings of fountain=* (function <> 
style <> ...)






fountain=* is not specific enough without further explanation.

Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some 
misunderstandings and ease migration?




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-12 Thread Warin



On 11/10/22 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
wrote:

How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?

The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and 
definitely is not a decorative fountain.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


it is a historic fountain


Historic? I think 'old' is the only thing that can be determined from 
the photo?




that IMHO clearly is decorative, that stuff in the background doesn’t seem to 
be there by incident. Maybe it is also a historic watering place (seems small 
for this)? Not knowing the context I cannot tell you for sure what it is. 
amenity=fountain doesn’t seem off. Many “decorative” fountains also had utility.



I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is 
the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys .. 
etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of water 
simply by its shape.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-11 Thread Minh Nguyen


Vào lúc 01:22 2022-10-11, Marc_marc đã viết:
the namespace isn't needed, it's just a bad pratice due to a missing 
feature in iD (another editor uses taginfo combinations to propose the 
most relevant values, iD on the other hand proposes everything often 
without filter, but as I said, it is not a reason to invent shop:brand 
or shop:name, it is a point which must be improved in iD and not by the 
abuse of namespace)


I wouldn't pin the blame on iD for the development of namespaces. The 
main reason iD uses some namespaced keys is because they're 
well-established, for example crossing:light. Another reason is to avoid 
homonymous keys [1] in some cases where the consequence is more severe 
than just some irrelevant suggestions in the taginfo-powered suggestion 
list.


The need to filter taginfo values has often helped to make a decision 
between two reasonable alternatives in the absence of some other 
deciding factor. But if iD were as contrarian as you describe, then it 
would insist on iteratively refining e.g. religion=christian with 
christian=* rather than presenting the user with an unfiltered 
denomination=* field to keep Buddhist denominations from showing up.


The idea of namespacing keys comes up all the time by mappers uninvolved 
with the iD project (see contact:*). The most salient one in my opinion 
is that sometimes the manufacturer or model only applies to part of a 
mapped feature, especially in the case of a dual-tagged feature. For 
example:


* man_made=flagpole is tagged with flag:name=* rather than name=* 
because the name of the flagpole, if there is one, would differ from the 
name of the flag flying on it.


* siren:model=* was probably coined because it emergency=siren is often 
dual-tagged on a man_made=utility_pole node, the pole having a different 
make and model than the siren.


* The recently approved crossing:markings proposal encourages the use of 
surface:colour=* as a less ambiguous alternative to colour=*.


These keys came from the database, or the wiki, but not originally from 
iD. In any case, there's a draft proposal to consolidate the various 
make and model-related keys. [2]


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Homonymous_keys
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Manufacturer_and_Model


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?
> 
> The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and 
> definitely is not a decorative fountain.
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg

it is a historic fountain that IMHO clearly is decorative, that stuff in the 
background doesn’t seem to be there by incident. Maybe it is also a historic 
watering place (seems small for this)? Not knowing the context I cannot tell 
you for sure what it is. amenity=fountain doesn’t seem off. Many “decorative” 
fountains also had utility.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> If I have a fountain that is not decorative, doesn't have a tap and doesn't 
> provide drinking water, this fountain cannot be tagged.

why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a tap? 
if it isn’t a tap it will not help if it had one.

What is the purpose of the fountain? What is the definition of “decorative”?

If this is still about laundry sinks, I suggest to not see them as fountains.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> This is problematic, since if you only tag amenity=fountain it will fall back 
> to a decorative fountain since amenity=fountain appears to be defined in that 
> way.

those fountains that supply drinking water have the drinking_water=yes tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :

On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that 
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values 
to describe the known cases 
We would need to approve that certain keys are moved from fountain=* to 
model=*  


on this point: yes
and I think this should be a fairly simple proposal and likely to be 
accepted since it avoids multiple meanings of fountain=* (function <> 
style <> ...)




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


On 11/10/22 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
or you simply don’t put this detail. 


This is problematic, since if you only tag amenity=fountain it will fall 
back to a decorative fountain since amenity=fountain appears to be 
defined in that way.


I'll repeat the problems with the current tagging scheme that I already 
listed elsewhere.


If I have a fountain that is not decorative, doesn't have a tap and 
doesn't provide drinking water, this fountain cannot be tagged.


Because no main key applies to it.

- Not a decorative fountain, thus not an amenity=fountain

- Doesn't provide drinking water, thus not an amenity=drinking_water

- Does not have a tap, thus not a man_made=water_tap


How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?

The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and 
definitely is not a decorative fountain.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


Using amenity=fountain, fountain=utility will allow tagging this fountain.

As I said, the alternative would be to introduce another main tag under 
which to tag these features, but that was harshly criticized.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-11 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging




Oct 11, 2022, 12:27 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing  
>> nasone from the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.
>>
>>
>> Should we introduce another key for the style and then tag the  specific 
>> model of the fountain style as new_key=nasone,  new_key:model=model_1960?
>>
>>
>
>
> I still haven’t discovered the problem with fountain=nasone. If you are not 
> in Rome you will hardly ever come in contact with it, if you are in Rome, you 
> will easily find out what it is about. If you don’t evaluate fountain=nasone 
> in your app, it will gracefully degrade to amenity=drinking_water.
>
> When we tag a “model” it will sooner or later become a geek tag which would 
> indeed distinguish a 60ies from a 90ies nasone :D
>
main problems are that either

- editor will need to handle specific models as values
- this values will be not supported by editors and mappers will use less 
specific values
(this is not a problem if mappers using model values will never, ever complain
to mappers using only generic values and will never, ever complain to 
authors of editing software and noone will suggest adding support for model 
values in editing software

what is impossible to achieve)

And also
- there is no graceful degradation to "it is drinking fountain"
- wiki documentation pages are more confusing as result
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


Le 11.10.22 à 12:27, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
When we tag a “model” it will sooner or later become a geek tag which 
would indeed distinguish a 60ies from a 90ies nasone :D


model=nasone as a 1st step
if ppl want, model=nasone_1960 or model=nasone:1960 or :date isn't
an issue



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 12:06, Davidoskky  wrote:
> 
> I do agree, and that is also my objective; but I do like the idea of having a 
> very generic value you can fall back to when no other value applies.

I don’t like the idea, because it will only slow down development of 
significant tags. Either the fountain you want to tag fits into an existing 
category, or you invent a new one, or you simply don’t put this detail. Filling 
in a generic placeholder is not helpful.

> 
> 
>> this alternative tagging is just a temporary hickup which will wash out 
>> automatically I guess, but we could try to speed it up.
> Sure, but I see no reason for showing it on the wiki.

reason is that people use it. 

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 12:06, Davidoskky  wrote:
> 
> Some are indistinguishable from drinking fountains, some have drinking water 
> and can be used to wash clothes as well.

all drinking fountains can be used to wash clothes, although it may not be 
legal in some instances, especially the bottle refill, or effective (mist), ok, 
nearly all.

Anyway, I would not mix the possibility to wash clothes into the fountain type, 
rather use a new property for this, and maybe a new feature as well (usually 
these are not fountains, but if they are it can be expressed by tagging them 
also as fountains), if lavoir does not cover it (not sure there is a size limit 
for lavoir, the description seems merely functional).

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone

> On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing nasone from 
> the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.
> 
> Should we introduce another key for the style and then tag the specific model 
> of the fountain style as new_key=nasone, new_key:model=model_1960?
> 

I still haven’t discovered the problem with fountain=nasone. If you are not in 
Rome you will hardly ever come in contact with it, if you are in Rome, you will 
easily find out what it is about. If you don’t evaluate fountain=nasone in your 
app, it will gracefully degrade to amenity=drinking_water.

When we tag a “model” it will sooner or later become a geek tag which would 
indeed distinguish a 60ies from a 90ies nasone :D

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

On 11/10/22 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
this is not a redefinition, it is already like this.
man_made=water_tap describes a water tap.

man_made=water_tap is de facto being used to describe larger structures
that contain a water tap. This wouldn't be a problem if there was a way
to actually describe those features.

a feature for washing clothes for me is not a "fountain", it is a
lavoir, a laundry sink, or something similar.
Some are indistinguishable from drinking fountains, some have drinking
water and can be used to wash clothes as well.

I do not understand what "fountains to clean people" are, could you
give an example?

I had a walk the other day, you may look at these two pictures I took.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_with_water_basin_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg

the word "style", if used in opposition to "type", suggests something
like "fashion" to me, or art/architectural epoche style (e.g. art
deco, modern, post-modern, renaissance, barocco, etc.)

Agreed, style is not a good name for such key.

Introduction of the key tap=yes, used to describe if the flow of a
fountain can be controlled by the user.

is already introduced
Not really, tap=yes has 347 uses and it's used only regionally in
Dominican Republic to tag the presence of taps in a building.

- It is not used to mark the presence of a tap in a fountain

- It is not approved

- It is not documented on the wiki.

Refer here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065939.html

it is already introduced, 953 instances as of now, but actually it may
create problems for example in the case of a "decorative drinking
fountain", and because "decorative" is not clearly defined. Maybe this
situation could be improved.
Sure, I meant documenting it in the wiki and finding solutions for these
edge cases. If my idea was already a perfect full blown proposal I would
have published the proposal already.

yet another generic type, even more generic then "drinking"?
fountain=drinking is not generic enough, since there are types of non
decorative fountains that cannot be tagged in any way.

Refer here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065936.html

my suggestion would be to have other generic values, but slightly more
specific than "utility", to cover the cases that are not yet covered
by the documented values.
I do agree, and that is also my objective; but I do like the idea of
having a very generic value you can fall back to when no other value
applies.

this alternative tagging is just a temporary hickup which will wash
out automatically I guess, but we could try to speed it up.

Sure, but I see no reason for showing it on the wiki.

On the other hand, people using the same tag for (also only slightly)
different things, is a huge problem and leads to ambiguity and cannot
be solved automatically, all instances have to looked at again
I understand the problem, but I do not wish to start looking at all
possible existing fountain types in the world to make an exhaustive
list. Especially when people here start fighting about the specific name
of a fountain meant for drinking.

no it cannot. There are many fountains made of stone, but not all them
are instances of "stone block".
The value is ambiguous: it is described as any fountain that consists
mostly of a stone block. It may be a decorative fountain or a drinking
fountain or another type of fountain.

As you said:

using the same tag for (also only slightly) different things, is a
huge problem

Regarding the proposal: I would not make a big proposal package which
aims at changing all the things you mention, rather I would suggest to
make distinct proposals for each of these changes.
I think I will follow your advice. I'm currently thinking of two
separate proposals: one for introducing the fountains model (or whatever
new key we decide to introduce) and another one to introduce tap=* as a
way to describe the presence of a tap in a fountain. (Please, discuss
about these things in the thread wherever it is and not here)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*



On 11/10/22 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has
multiple models?

absolutely yes.


Would this be a problem at the current state of things?

Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing nasone 
from the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.


Should we introduce another key for the style and then tag the specific 
model of the fountain style as new_key=nasone, new_key:model=model_1960?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that 
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values 
to describe the known cases 
We would need to approve that certain keys are moved from fountain=* to 
model=* and that model=* should be documented in the amenity=fountain 
and fountain=* wiki pages.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :


Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :
I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block 
since it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone.


There are many fountains made of stone, but not all them 
are instances of "stone block".


a better improvement is material=stone_block
or stone:block (like we did with concrete:plate)



https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fairmont_Sonoma_Mission_Inn_August_2019_-_Sarah_Stierch_09.jpg

I agree with this. These machines are no "fountains" for me,  
neither the indoor versions


to add a mess to the mess, in french, it's a called "fountaine à eau" 
(yes it's a bit funny)

I don't really see the functional difference with other objects
of the same kind made of metal or pirate

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Am Di., 11. Okt. 2022 um 10:24 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has multiple models?
>


absolutely yes.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


Le 11.10.22 à 09:48, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :

we just need to approve that it should be used for fountains as well. 


you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that 
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values 
to describe the known cases


Some use the main_feature:model namespace, but in this case it shouldn't 
be required since we are describing the model of the primary feature 
(the fountain).


the namespace isn't needed, it's just a bad pratice due to a missing 
feature in iD (another editor uses taginfo combinations to propose the 
most relevant values, iD on the other hand proposes everything often 
without filter, but as I said, it is not a reason to invent shop:brand 
or shop:name, it is a point which must be improved in iD and not by the 
abuse of namespace)




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-11 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging




Oct 11, 2022, 09:48 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>> Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't want to 
>> get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would like to simply 
>> discuss the need of such a key without defining the actual name.
>>
>> If people agree that such key is required I will then try to find, together 
>> with you, an appropriate name for such key.
>>
>
> Scouring the wiki I found a key that might be perfect for this: model=* 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:model
>
> It has over 32,000 uses and it is used to define the model of several 
> different features.
>
> I will prepare a proposal for this now; since this key is already affirmed 
> and approved we just need to approve that it should be used for fountains as 
> well.
>
Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has multiple models?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I do not believe
> anymore that man_made=water_tap should be deprecated but rather
> redefined to only describe the tap of a fountain and not the whole
> fountain.
>


this is not a redefinition, it is already like this. man_made=water_tap
describes a water tap.



> *Proposal summary*
>
> amenity=fountain describes both decorative fountains and utility
> fountains, such as drinking fountains, small fountains for washing
> clothes, fountains to clean people or provide water to animals; this
> would not include large facilities with one single scope in mind: for
> example a building where people go to wash clothes would not fall under
> this tag.
>


a feature for washing clothes for me is not a "fountain", it is a lavoir, a
laundry sink, or something similar.
I do not understand what "fountains to clean people" are, could you give an
example?



>
> Introduction of the key fountain:style=* that accepts as values all the
> ones currently listed in the wiki as "Specific types of drinking water
> fountains"; translation of the definition of all those fountains to
> fountain=drinking, fountain:style=*.
>


the word "style", if used in opposition to "type", suggests something like
"fashion" to me, or art/architectural epoche style (e.g. art deco, modern,
post-modern, renaissance, barocco, etc.)




>
> Introduction of the key tap=yes, used to describe if the flow of a
> fountain can be controlled by the user.
>


is already introduced



>
> Introduction of the generic value fountain=decorative, that ensures the
> fountain is decorative.
>


it is already introduced, 953 instances as of now, but actually it may
create problems for example in the case of a "decorative drinking
fountain", and because "decorative" is not clearly defined. Maybe this
situation could be improved.




>
> Introduction of the generic value fountain=utility, that describes the
> fountain as non-decorative.
>


yet another generic type, even more generic then "drinking"?



>
> Deprecation of fountain=drinking_fountain in favour of fountain=drinking.
>


this alternative tagging is just a temporary hickup which will wash out
automatically I guess, but we could try to speed it up.



>
> The idea is that fountains not covered by the current values can still
> be tagged as either decorative or utility even if a specific tag does
> not exist.
>


my suggestion would be to have other generic values, but slightly more
specific than "utility", to cover the cases that are not yet covered by the
documented values.




>
> You can propose other values for fountain=* but I guess those will come
> with time anyway, since the idea is to make this easily extensible.
>


the benefit of documenting key/values is that the chance is bigger that
everybody uses the same or similar definitions for the same key. Keep in
mind that having 2 tags for the exactly same thing is not a big deal, it is
almost no problem at all, it can be interpreted without problems and the
effort to deal with both is almost not existent (and automatic retagging
could be performed without problems). On the other hand, people using the
same tag for (also only slightly) different things, is a huge problem and
leads to ambiguity and cannot be solved automatically, all instances have
to looked at again




>
>
> I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block since
> it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone.



no it cannot. There are many fountains made of stone, but not all them are
instances of "stone block".



> This tag impedes
> tagging the fountain with a specific value in order to describe its
> material.
>
>
> I'm unsure whether fountain=bottle_refill should be kept.
>
> In the wiki it is decribed by this image:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fairmont_Sonoma_Mission_Inn_August_2019_-_Sarah_Stierch_09.jpg
>
> The water does not come through pipes, but from a nearby water
> container. I'd rather tag it as its own amenity.
>


I agree with this. These machines are no "fountains" for me, neither the
indoor versions, nor their rugged outdoor sisters.

Regarding the proposal: I would not make a big proposal package which aims
at changing all the things you mention, rather I would suggest to make
distinct proposals for each of these changes.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*


On 10/10/22 10:45, Marc_marc wrote:
it's vague and overlap drinking at least 


Sorry, I didn't notice this and thus didn't reply to you before.

I want this to be a more generic value than drinking: thus if you're 
unsure whether a fountain is a drinking fountain you can tag it as utility.


If you want to tag a fountain, which is not decorative and for which no 
specific value exists you can tag it as utility. In this way I make sure 
that any fountain can be tagged.


For example, there is currently no value available for fountains whose 
intended use is washing your hands. Rather than introducing all 
plausible values, I'd rather introduce a generic one and then see if the 
need for specific ones develops.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*




Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't 
want to get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would 
like to simply discuss the need of such a key without defining the 
actual name.


If people agree that such key is required I will then try to find, 
together with you, an appropriate name for such key.


Scouring the wiki I found a key that might be perfect for this: model=* 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:model


It has over 32,000 uses and it is used to define the model of several 
different features.


I will prepare a proposal for this now; since this key is already 
affirmed and approved we just need to approve that it should be used for 
fountains as well.


Some use the main_feature:model namespace, but in this case it shouldn't 
be required since we are describing the model of the primary feature 
(the fountain). Counting those tags as well the count of uses is over 
43,000.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*