> > > Thanks Hauke The namespace scheme could work. It is very elegant and clean. The meaning of customer in container is a bit confusing... as it can be a paying or non paying customer.
I could see : free_water = <anyone,must_consume> free_water:container =<own,establishment> free_water:table=<yes/no> How long does it typically take for the tag allocation decision process to be completed? Do you have an example wiki proposal page ? Best regards, Stuart > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:57:02 +0100 > From: Hauke Stieler <m...@hauke-stieler.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > restaurant > Message-ID: <b247e31a-8523-a49b-0a9e-cd9a7f731...@hauke-stieler.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Stuart, > > > The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided > > we will write wiki instructions in this manner. > No decisions have been made so far. Currently all these mails just > contain ideas and discussions. > > I'm personally a fan of the namespace scheme, the one with the ":" > separating parts of a tag. You'll find this e.g. on addresses: > > addr:street=* > addr:city=* > addr:housenumber=* > ... > > Or also for parking situations: > > parking:lane=* > parking:lane:left=* > parking:condition=* > ... > > This semantic separation of a key creates a nice structure and organizes > this huge collection of possible tags into groups. > > > I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no free_water_table=yes/no > Because the beginning of these two tags are the same, for me personally > it's a reason to change them into "free_water:..." tags. > > Using this scheme, I can also imagine the following tags (just ideas, > the keys and values are probably not optimal): > > free_water=<yes/no/customers> > free_water:container=<customer/supplier/both> > free_water:table=<yes/no> > (maybe more...) > > However, in the end, there must probably be a tag proposal (a wiki page > describing how the final tags should look like, what they exactly mean, > when to use them, what use-cases do they have, etc.). Everybody can vote > for or against the proposal, therefore it's in the end on the community > to decide what tags become "official". > > Hauke > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 833 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/7ff6a580/attachment-0001.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:01:56 +0100 > From: European Water Project <europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin > Koppenhoefer) > Message-ID: > <CAK=tSVf_Da=AT= > gek8n0usxa_vbaurryqqwvv9f6emejdu1...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > 2. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin Koppenhoefer) > > > >>>>> Martin, Italy is amazing. Apparently there are more than 100,000 > fountains in Italy. On the 24th of April, we are planning a fountain hunt > in Rome with the My-D.org. We should be 20 people including locals (just in > case you live there). > re: amenity=drinking_water > France is complicated and the lobbies have made almost all perfectly good > water fountains labelled "non potable". Just across the borders in > Switzerland and Italy all the fountains are good to drink...... > > Price can be an incentive, but unless the waste producer pays all true > indirect externalities the cost will always be minimal for PET. > > > > 3. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Philip Barnes) > > > > >>>>>>>Philip, Yes, like the US and France. We believe that it should be > that way everywhere. No one should have to create single-use waste to keep > themselves hydrated. > > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:50:20 +0100 > > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > > Message-ID: > > < > > cabptjtclw2ikprn1vagbtc4x9zguotol0xcoxz5mpnc6g0-...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < > > europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > > > > > While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change > > > legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but > rather > > a > > > right to be able to drink without generating single-use waste. Belgium, > > > Luxembourg, Switzerland and Italy are not obliged to serve tap water > > with > > > a meal like in France where we live. > > > > > > > > > from a practical point of view, living in Italy, I have not yet > encountered > > a place that would have refused (free) tap water. Great thing about Italy > > is that you can get free water in many places right on the street, from > > drinking fountains 24/7. amenity=drinking_water is rank 5 on Italy's > > taginfo stats, almost double the amount of petrol stations :) > > https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/italy/keys/amenity#values > > > > In France, drinking_water is amenity rank 23, so rightfully your > government > > has found other ways to provide you with water ;-) > > https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/france/keys/amenity#values > > > > Not to get me wrong, I do agree there is benefit from political action, > and > > there are issues related to water. What also matters is the actual price > > you have to pay for (bottled) water. It will always be completely > unrelated > > to drinking water prices, but while in Italy a bottle of water is > typically > > 1 EUR (away from airports), or 2 EUR (in the restaurant, there are > > exceptions), in Germany they will typically charge you 2,50 and more for > > just a glass of water. In Switzerland, they sell water for 5 SFR a bottle > > on the motorway, and 4 EUR and more is not unseen on German motorways as > > well. > > > > Cheers > > Martin > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/41ea2a3c/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:12:56 +0000 > > From: Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > > Message-ID: > > <ba9dbef6a392aaafac3f9c7fc86dcc6785ee2064.ca...@trigpoint.me.uk> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > In GB it is the law that licensed premises provide free drinking water. > > > > So that , means all pubs, most restaurants and some cafes. > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/08db579c/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > **************************************** > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/f4e4ddb5/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 21:02:10 +0100 > From: Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking > Message-ID: > <CAJJ-S94-nzLN9GmFq= > w_wgvqprkyrqbobbgap8gyls2yxq1...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hi John > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 22:37, John Willis via Tagging > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.31737/139.61884 > > > > Here is a good example of the kind of situations I have in my area: > > > > - a service area with two different lots, car and HGV (bus/lorry) > adjacent to each other, with a satellite bathroom for the busses. > > - service area is segregated by motorway direction, and labeled as such. > This makes duplicates of everything. They are usually not adjacent, but > are in this case. > > - dedicated separated handicap parking > > - separate “permissive” lots for people outside the toll system to park > and enter on foot. > > - loading zones for deliveries (untagged). > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/758265853 > > amenity=parking > access=customers > bus=designated > hgv=designated > motorcar=no > parking=surface > ref=🚛🚌 > surface=asphalt > > As amenity=parking currently is defined as a car park, data users > would assume that this is a car park for customers (they likely don't > evaluate motorcar=no). > > Even if amenity=parking weren't exclusive for cars, but for any > vehicles, your tagging doesn't mean what you likely had in mind (i.e. > a customer parking for buses and HGVs), but a designated parking > facility for buses and HGVs (not only for customers) that other > vehicles except cars (e.g. tourist buses or motorcycles) can use if > they are customers. > > In order that data understand your example and before we've found a > solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend > to tag it as follows: > > amenity=parking > access=no > bus=customers > hgv=customers > > Regards > > Markus > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 78 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
