> For water wells min and max_suction_head is not suitable. There we
> should introduce
> suction_head=#
-1 this will add another tag
>I know, that the water level will drop if you suck a lot of water out of
>a well. But
>it will not be practical to reflect those level changes (how to measure,
>> I've found that in man_made=water_well [0], pump=* and pump:type=* are
>> already in use. I think we can use the same tags for hydrants
>> connected to fire water wells. Don't we?
>>
>
>+1
>If we add new values like bilge_pump and electric_pump to the pump:type
>key.
>
>Moritz
Already done. :
On 13-Sep-17 05:20 PM, marc marc wrote:
Le 13. 09. 17 à 02:04, Warin a écrit :
If you need to tag a specific check than possibly check_date:flow=*
it doesn't say how the check was done... if you read flow number
from a info panel, an opendata database or do a functional check.
it just mean "you
On Wednesday 13 September 2017, Lukas Sommer wrote:
>
> The reasons for negative vote were various and did not go in only one
> direction. I do not know how these different positons can be
> reconciled. So I will do no further proposals.
>
> Anyway this remains an issue in OSM: Rendering OSM data c
Hello.
The feature proposal for language information did not get enough
support. Voting is over. The proposal is closed as “rejected”.
The reasons for negative vote were various and did not go in only one
direction. I do not know how these different positons can be
reconciled. So I will do no fur
Am 2017-09-08 00:51, schrieb Viking:
For these cases and for ponds or rivers where the water level may
vary, we can use:
min_scution_head=# (meters) when water level is high and the distance
from ground level is to the minimum
max_suction_head=# (meters) ) when water level is low and the distanc
Am 2017-09-12 23:16, schrieb Viking:
I've found that in man_made=water_well [0], pump=* and pump:type=* are
already in use. I think we can use the same tags for hydrants
connected to fire water wells. Don't we?
+1
If we add new values like bilge_pump and electric_pump to the pump:type
ke
what can a operational_status be net specific enough for a hydrant ?
if you test that water is going out the hydrant, I didn't see what is
not specific enough to call it "a functional check"
+1
Let's say if the hydrant meets the requirements in terms of
pressure/flow rate it status is ok.
In the discussion page [0] someone says that check_date=* is a
synonymous of survey:date=* in common usage. Is this correct? Should
we use another tag functional_check=* ? But I don't like to introduce
a new tag.
+1 for not introducing a new tag.
But I think we need two different types of d
Le 13. 09. 17 à 02:04, Warin a écrit :
> If you need to tag a specific check than possibly check_date:flow=*
it doesn't say how the check was done... if you read flow number
from a info panel, an opendata database or do a functional check.
it just mean "you do a check related to the flow"
> funct
10 matches
Mail list logo
