The new forum may be also more capable of handling large volume of
posts - you can
easily mute threads and entire categories.
It's also possible to subscribe to only the first post in a category.
Thus, you may set to be notified whenever a new proposal is posted and
only then choose if
Hello, since I made some edits to my original proposal I have waited
some extra time before starting a vote to wait for further comment, I
received no such comments in the meanwhile and thus I'm now starting a
voting for the key fountain:design.
If it is indeed better (which I personally am not convinced), then why not
change the proposal to ask that, in addition to the tagging mailing list,
proposal might (or should?) be announced at *as many contact channels as
possible* of those listed
- if a mailing list user want to reply to a message on the forum,
he must subscribe/use the forum
Note that this is already happening with some things being discussed
both on the forum and on the mailing list without the requirement to
post it there.
This has also been the norm until now
Nice proposal, thank you.
I'll get to read it more thoroughly later.
On 13/11/22 11:39, Daniele Santini wrote:
Voting has started for the proposal "Manufacturer and Model":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Manufacturer_and_Model
.
The goal is to clarify the keys and the
Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet
proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet
I'm alright with using a name different from fountain since a lot of
people disagree on that name.
By doing all this you're effectively deprecating
On 28/10/22 23:38, Matija Nalis wrote:
This stands, however in many places on this planet (and growing by the day)
there is now limited amount of drinking
water, and we often simply cannot afford to waste it - however much we might
prefer such luxuruios carelessness are
constantly flowing
Most of the outdoor fountains I have seen are not chilled.
You get water at a temperature lower than the external one because the
pipes are underground, sometimes the water is very cold; especially in
the mountains where it could come from a spring.
Having a tap which prevents the water
Thank you Martin!
Do not worry, I have met you before and remember you as a very good person.
I have no hard feelings about that.
On 28/10/22 11:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 28 Oct 2022, at 10:46, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
I do not like the aggressiveness
On 28/10/22 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
How is such a statement helpful in a tagging discussion? It can be said about
everything, I don’t tag it because I can go there to find out. If you are not
interested in tagging details, don’t engage in the discussion about these
things.
What I
On 28/10/22 07:43, Warin wrote:
I think the actuator is more important than the 'tap'/'valve' and
would give more information than 'tap=yes/no'.
Actuator definitely provides more information and implicitly defines
tap=yes.
This said, I don't know whether it's more important. While I could
I have changed my proposal.
Rather than using model=* I now propose to use fountain:design=*
Please provide your opinion in the wiki talk page or here.
I will let at least two weeks pass from today before initiating a vote.
On 11/10/22 15:17, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
Use model
On 14/10/22 11:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, I see the wall behind the trough with the water spout as part of
the fountain, it is a rock carved decorated wall. Or do you believe it
is there just for coincidence?
I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we
agree
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.
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
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
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
On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote:
I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a
solution first before even thinking of depreciation.
I do agree and appreciate this approach. A solution for tagging
man_made=drinking_fountain already exists, that is fountain=bubbler.
I
On 11/10/22 15:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
but in general I support this idea, just key seems wrong.
If you can advise better keys, please do that in the wiki discussion
page so that good ideas are documented there and not lost in the mailing
list.
It might be good to have
On 11/10/22 15:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
what happens when Rome start using new model of fountain in a given style?
You would tag that as a new model.
Style has many problems, because you could very well tag baroque
fountains as a style or baroque fountains made by this
Use model=* to describe fountains
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal
Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
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
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
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
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
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
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,
I do not like very much at all the key
"new_key_describing_fountain_style" — if that is really a literal key
you (Davidoskky) are proposing here. If it is a place-holder for what
we eventually decide upon FOR the semantics of that key, then OK, I'm
nodding my head and continue to listen /
Don't think it really needs anything more than you said earlier:
amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative / utility / drinking
should cover it?
No, this is not enough to cover the features that are currently tagged,
thus this would be a regression.
Currently you can tag nasone, toret,
Do you know if a tag already exist to describe the presence of a
tap in a building ?
a tap like the one used in man_made=water_tap ?
I'm not exactly sure what it is describing, I should contact the people
who added those tags...
I assume in the case of fuel stations it means there is
On 10/10/22 18:25, Marc_marc wrote:
of course, I share your opinion since it breaks the tag chain system :
a sub-tag rafines the "upper" tag which must therefore be present.
it is the expression that at least one tag is missing to describe
the common characteristic between these
(BTW, I want to document existing tagging here and tap=yes has 347
uses while
man_made=water_tap 23 711 uses - though if someone wants to make proposal
they are welcome, tagging scheme is quite rotten here)
I have been looking at the current uses of tap=* and water_tap=* as I'm
planning to
It is true that OpenStreetMap allows for any tag you like, but this
isn’t meant to encourage you to devalue established tags by using them
differently from how they are typically used. What would be the
benefit you expect from such retagging?
This is not something I am suggesting; this is
In Australia it would be unusual to find a drinking fountain without a
tap to stop the flow when a person is not drinking. I think it could
be illegal such is the scarcity of water.
Thus, I believe that a world wide default should be avoided in favour of
local ones or enforcing explicit
If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower.
If around the pipe on which the tap is present is fitted a fountain ..
then it becomes a fountain.
Nit picking: Oxygen is a gas .. under 'normal' conditions.
Better to use the term fluid rather than liquid.
I would expect the
water_tap=yes/no already exist and I see no value to change
from water_tap=* to tap=*
I cannot find water_tap=* on the wiki, anyway taginfo shows 166 elements
tagged as water_tap=* and 470 tagged as tap=*.
I also find that you spread yourself too thinly by talking about
ideas that you
question: is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes?
Just chiming in since I'm not really interested in this proposal and I
will not vote.
It makes more sense to ask whether it is widespread in the EU not to
accept certain types of notes rather than if it is legal.
Hello,
in this message
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/065805.html
I proposed two different ways to go about the inability to well describe
features that provide water through pipes.
The first idea proposed was focusing on using the subtag fountain=* and
Similarly the tap that is part of a drinking fountain cannot represent the
whole fountain, hence it shouldn’t be in “competition” with the fountain tag,
it could be added as a property like tap=* but adding it as man_made to the
amenity (which is supposed to represent the whole feature) would
I started this thread to confirm/reject listing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as
man_made=water_tap
fountain=bubbler
drinking_water=yes
amenity=drinking_water
replace man_made=water_tap with tap=yes and I subscribe. Also remove
the redundant drinking_water=yes, it is
I'll be voting no.
Me too, I feel there are way too many changes.
I'd rather better define the values of fountain=*.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 08/10/22 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
this is the result of focusing what apparently most people are interested in
(drinking water), regardless of the physical details
I think this is good and I have no intention of changing this thing in fact.
That’s why we decided some years ago
Apparently they are not decorative enough for some people and should
be tagged amenity=drinking_water. However, the same type of fountain
could have a sign saying the water is not potable
Thank you for the examples, this is what I was trying to address.
yes, if the water is drinkable, I
I wish to broadly discuss the definition of fountains and similar
objects that have the objective of delivering water (drinkable or not).
Everything I wish to discuss in this thread is about man made
constructions that transport water through pipes, I will thus not talk
about wells and such
Thank you, I will close this long thread.
It makes no sense to keep talking about all these things here when the
purpose was just the deprecation of man_made=drinking_fountain.
I'll open a new thread in which I'll try to write my ideas about all
this in more detail in order to have a more in
But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
if technically possible.
Yes, I agree with Mateusz: I would find deprecation of amenity=drinking_water
to be highly problematic. It is a very long-established tag.
I also agree with this, I don't think it
everybody can write everything in the wiki, but man_made=drinking_fountain is a
low usage tag and drinking_fountain=yes is virtually unused (10 times
globally), whoever wrote this didn’t research actual usage. Where is it written?
It is written here:
these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a property.
both can be used, but typical applications will be different.
Yes, I meant that there is no need for such feature since it overlaps
with other features and could very well be described as a property of
one of
I think the above should depreciate amenity=drinking_water as it is
more generic.
I do like this approach, however it forces people to actually describe
several features when entering data in the database rather than just
writing "here you can drink".
While I might like this, I think this is
in my experience, small steps are more likely to succeed and are a
good thing, especially when they go in a consistent long-term direction
I agree with Marc, man_made=drinking_fountain appears to be completely
useless and redundant.
I see no reason against deprecating it.
If other things
With replacement of man_made=water_tap where applicable > which is
likely for all cases or almost all cases.
and for other amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes ?
I agree, man_made=drinking_fountain has no reason to exist.
*Bubbler with tap
*
* amenity=fountain
* fountain=bubbler
*
I wouldn't call this a "drinking fountain," since I understand that term to
mean the water flows upwards
COULD drink from it, if I were to cup my hands and bring them to my lips,
even as that is inefficient, if I were really thirsty, I could do it.
In my country, and most countries I visited,
I'll add to this list all those taps that can be activated without a direct
manipulation of an object, such as passing your hand in front of a light ray
which causes the water to start flowing.
The objects being manipulated in this case are photons.
Maybe you are being needlessly pedantic
This is why I said "if it's got a user-friendly valve," like if you press a button (and a stream shoots up to
your lips to drink), wiggle a stem so water falls down (on your hands to wash), step on a lever (and the flow
begins)...yeah, these things have a knob / lever / valve (maybe it rotates,
Hi,
I have added a few comments in the wiki.
Davide
On 29/09/22 10:18, Martin Fischer wrote:
Hey everybody,
I just drafted a proposal to formalize app:* which is currently used
in Sweden to link Android & iOS apps of pharmacies.
My proposal also addresses the inconsistency between the
55 matches
Mail list logo
