Add icons for water points and taps

[Tomasz-W]

There are some quite popular tags with water access points without rendering:

• man_made=water_tap (4,5k uses)
• amenity=water_point (12,4k uses)

My icons proposals, based on current amenity=drinking_water icon:
drop of water:

14x14:

water tank:

14x14:

pail:

14x14:

[dieterdreist]

amenity=water_point according to the wiki is to be used for places offering water in big quantity (refilling a tank as opposed to drinking water where you get small quantities). The icons seem alternative icons for amenity=drinking_water (small quantity) rather than water point. The water_tap can somehow come into conflict with drinking water (should be distinguishable). Overall I believe these are not features for a general purpose map.

[Slawek234]

The third proposition appeals to me the most.

The combination of man_made=water_tap + amenity=water_point is very good because it captures what is in reality. Water is usually taken from the tap.

[matkoniecz]

pail:

For me it was not readable at all that it is supposed to be a bucket. I thought that it is supposed to be a hand

drop of water

It does not really look like a drop

water tank

tap is OK, water tank for me seemed to be a wall before reading description

[matkoniecz]

For places offering water in big quantity? how was it measured? Let someone give an example amenity=water_point?

Generally, it is better to ask such question on wiki discussion page or tagging mailing list and mention definition issues here only in cases where tag is so poorly defined that adding support for it would be harmful.

[kocio-pl]

Related to #1224.

Yes, I guess discussion on Tagging list is needed to sort the things out before we do the actual coding. BTW: I like the icons here and for me they're all readable enough. A drop might be oil for example (for me it's "drop enough"), but there's always something you can misunderstand - current drinkable icon could also mean beer (or whatever drink you can get from a tap), so it's not clearly better than the new icons.

[kocio-pl]

Overall I believe these are not features for a general purpose map.

I believe they are - just like other camping or fuel station stuff, for example. Water is very generic type of resource that can be used for variety of things (fire hydrants are specific and belong rather to emergency maps/apps, but we don't discuss them here).

[matkoniecz]

I think that man_made=water_tap should not be rendered. If it is source of water it should be tagged also with amenity=drinking_water (or maybe amenity=water_point).

Sole man_made=water_tap may represent water tap with water known to be useless or currently not working or otherwise making it useless for getting water.

amenity=water_point seems to be pointless duplication of amenity=drinking_water where some subtag such be used but unfortunately is popular - so I would not be opposed to rendering it (maybe exactly like amenity=drinking_water?).

[kocio-pl]

My take is that water tap is supposed to have a water in general. It's hard for me to imagine people adding mostly non-working taps (what for?). It can happen, of course, but only as an exception and I would rather use water=no or just disused scheme then.

amenity=drinking_water looks like an "old fashioned" standalone, general feature, when we don't claim anything specific about the source. amenity=water_point is a bit more specific (for example man_made=drinking_fountain would be excluded here), so I prefer to highlight the intended bulkiness with a bucket, but rendering them the same is also possible.

What do you think about it?

[matkoniecz]

My take is that water tap is supposed to have a water in general. It's hard for me to imagine people adding mostly non-working taps

I agree, but I am strongly against adding rendering that show wrong/misleading map for any correct data. Especially in cases where it would help only to display not fully tagged objects.

[kocio-pl]

Hm, I guess I still don't understand something... 😞

It seems that for you man_made=water_tap is not fully tagged, do I get it right? For me disused is the proper, universal solution to exclude anything not working as expected - and we believe that any other object is working by default. I don't understand why it is enough for shops for example (we don't add "selling=yes" by default just to be sure it's working) but not for taps? If somebody won't add disused, it's a data fault, not ours.

The only example I recall when we don't assume working state by default are building=church/mosque/* - they need "place of worship" tag to know they are really used for praying, but I'm not even sure if that's not a side effect of some other consideration.

I was also thinking about rendering taps only if they also have drinking_water=* - would it be enough for you to be sure? The middle ground could be rendering such items in amenity brown and "not 100% sure" taps in man made grey - it would encourage tagging water, which is always batter than implicit and I would be happy with it.

[matkoniecz]

It seems that for you man_made=water_tap is not fully tagged, do I get it right?

If it is source of drinking water and it is without amenity tag (if there is already other amenity tag then drinking_water tag may be used instead) - yes, it is not properly tagged and not rendering it is OK for me.

What more significant it may be disused, contain water that is not a drinking water ( for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater or other water useful only for irrigation or other special purpose ) etc etc.

for me disused is the proper, universal solution to exclude anything not working as expected

I consider disused=yes, destroyed=yes etc as horrible idea that should not be used or supported ( see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35702 for in-depth explanation/complain/rant .)

I don't understand why it is enough for shops for example (we don't add "selling=yes" by default just to be sure it's working) but not for taps?

Every shop by definition sells something, not every water tap is source of drinking water.

building=church/mosque/* - they need "place of worship" tag to know they are really used for praying

Former church building used now for different purposes is still building=church ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dchurch )

I was also thinking about rendering taps only if they also have drinking_water=*

I would do it only for drinking_water=yes ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinking_water#values )

in man made grey

I think that it would not be obvious, just not rendering them should be OK.

[matkoniecz]

One concerning thing about water_point, to quote mailing list

Someone can explain the reason for imports amenity=water_point
https://postimg.org/image/48ok5saed/ for example an increase in the amount
of the tag amenity=drinking_water https://postimg.org/image/f3607hgl1/ you
can see big differences http://taghistory.raifer.tech/.

So before adding rendering we should check whatever usage number of amenity=water_point are inflated by broken imports.

[kocio-pl]

This seems to be detailed discussion, so I plan to wait a few days before it settles down a bit. However I'd like to know how do you plan to check this?

[kocio-pl]

I think such tagging is complete:

Every shop by definition sells something, not every water tap is source of drinking water.

Let's look at the example:

shop=clothes vs man_made=water_tap/amenity=water_point

in both cases you know what is being distributed - water is included in the name, so I have no doubt. Also in both cases we assume that it's working - otherwise disused: prefix would make it not visible on osm-carto (it's not the same as the tags you ranted about). It can be not always usable, but that's why we can use temporal tags (seasonal, intermittent, opening hours etc.).

You seem to believe "drinking water" is straight concept, but my understanding after the discussion on the list is that it's very vague and depends on the local issues the same as "trunk" road for example. For example in the Polish Wikipedia there's a remark about 3rd world water sources, which are used even if we wouldn't count it as drinkable. There's also a legal: prefix, which shows that it's more complicated than simple binary alternative (drinkable=yes/no).

So I think we should not suggest something about the water we don't know in general and which can differ a lot around the planet. Adding water tags is more accurate, so using gray (no details) and brown (some water details) makes sense, but that's rather a hint from mapper, since there's no universal meaning what "drinking water" really is.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 20. Jan 2018, at 19:02, kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote: otherwise disused: prefix would make it not visible on osm-carto (it's not the same as the tags you ranted about). It can be not always usable, but that's why we can use temporal tags (seasonal, intermittent, opening hours etc.)

a water tap could be working but not the tube it is attached to, so maybe there’s no water from a “working“ tag - if you agree that the node refers just to the tap, not the whole system

[kocio-pl]

"Disused" is proper then, isn't it?

[Slawek234]

I think only amenity=water_point/drinkig_water + man_made= should be rendered. Itself man_made= rather should not.

[Tomasz-W]

I think only amenity=water_point/drinkig_water + man_made= should be rendered. Itself man_made= rather should not.

Water taps on cemeteries may be very useful information (and it's not a drinkable water), I would like to see it on the map

[Slawek234]

What's the problem?
amenity=water_point/drinking_water (main tag)
man_made=water_tape (secondary tag)
treated=yes/no (water quality tag relatively easy to deduce)
drinking_water=yes/no (water quality tag not easy to deduce)

"Water taps on cemeteries may be very useful information"
in the case of a cemetery, would be enough
amenity=water_point/drinking_water (main tag)
man_made=water_tape (secondary tag)
treated=yes/no (water quality tag)

[kocio-pl]

This is not a question what is a maximum set of water tags, but why minimum has to be so complicated?

amenity=water_point/drinking_water (main tag)

man_made=water_tap - it's also standalone water tag, why is it "secondary" for you? You also assume it's working by default - if not, tag disused:amenity=water_point/drinking_water (we don't say anything about infrastructure, just what it was intended for, but it might be not usable currently) or disused:man_made=water_tap.

And you have to know if it's drinking or bulk, which are specific cases, while in practice you just see there's a water tap (not some other liquid).

drinking_water=yes/no (water quality tag)

It doesn't make sense with amenity=drinking_water. Looking at the wiki:

Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can be specified with drinking_water=yes and drinking_water=no. Consider adding also more general amenity=drinking_water in case it is potable water.

None of them are required and it might not be important. On cemetery technical water is enough to be usable (for washing tombs mainly), you might not know if it's drinkable, but so what?

And consider the places outside the Western world, because OSM is universal.

[Slawek234]

"And consider the places outside the Western world, because OSM is universal."
In my opinion osm tagging should be universal all over the world, I do not know a simpler, stable way of tagging water sources type for many years.

[kocio-pl]

You want simple way, but you propose complicated tagging. Drinkability is real life problem which I don't think we should try to solve on this style, so let's keep it simple.

[Slawek234]

What's the problem?
amenity=water_point/drinking_water (main tag)
man_made=water_tape (secondary tag)
treated=yes/no (water quality tag relatively easy to deduce)
drinking_water=yes/no (water quality tag not easy to deduce)
all complex tagging in the maxi version!
amenity=water_point/drinking_water
the minimum version

[kocio-pl]

Of course amenity=water_point/drinking_water is minimum version, we don't argue about it. 😄

But I asked why man_made=water_tap is not minimum for you, while wiki says it is (nothing else is required) and you didn't relate to that.

[Slawek234]

"But I asked why man_made=water_tap is not minimum for you, while wiki says it is (nothing else is required) and you didn't relate to that."
Because it leaves the opportunity to describe the method of obtaining water from various types of taps, which has not been elaborated.
Besides, I would not use "disused" tag for water taps. Because if the water is in the tap or does not depend on the tap only the water supply network (small or wide)
What should be taken as the basic criterion when determining the water source types, the use or appearance? I think the use is more important then the look.

[kocio-pl]

Because it leaves the opportunity to describe the method of obtaining water from various types of taps, which has not been elaborated.

I don't understand this, could you tell more about it?

[Slawek234]

I noticed that the majority of publicly available taps can be divided, for example:
-classic water tap (very widespread, the most common, probably the oldest type) https://www.manomano.fr/robinet-de-fontaine/1-2-bib-robinet-type-deau-de-jardin-valve-en-laiton-a-lexterieur-agreable-a-regarder-3356570 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-2-3-4-GARDEN-WATER-TAP-LEVER-TYPE-BALL-VALVE-TYPE-RED-HANDLE-HOSE-PLUG-BSP-/251632886844
-press button water tap (also widespread in many versions, more and more popular) https://www.rakuten.com/shop/unique-bargains/product/a16050400ux0543/
-"drinking_fountain" most of them have a physical switch in the form of a button (subtype pess button water tap?) https://www.prodrinkingfountains.com/Haws_1105_Single_Bubbler_Drinking_Fountain_p/1105.htm https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Automated_Drinking_Fountain.jpg

I think there can be two more visible subtypes of taps: classic and press button water tap.

I was complicated it a bit... After a short reflection I don't see obstacles to not using itself mam_made=water_tap all water taps work the same (whatever they look)

[dieterdreist]

2018-01-21 18:09 GMT+01:00 Slawek234 <notifications@github.com>:

Besides, I would not use "disused" tag for water taps. Because if the water is in the tap or does not depend on the tap only the water supply network (small or wide)

a disused and even more an abandoned tap might not be in a workable state any more, regardless of the supply network.

[kocio-pl]

@Tomasz-W: could you post a link to the icons you have designed in a vector form (SVG files)?

[Tomasz-W]

@kocio-pl
drop of water: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/5b5b3fe7acd2d6cd9086337f3e5ee00a
tank: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/812de4bef3105046d0554eae55cc254a
pail: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/22da79f413e263ee9cda03634c38a0d9

[Slawek234]

What I like most is the "drop of water"

[govvin]

Could you consider shop=water, too? See #3060

[Tomasz-W]

It would be good to at least choose icons for both tags. As I see "drop of water" design the only one proper for water taps, actually all 3 designs could be used for amenity=water_point. What do you think?

• man_made=water_tap:
  

• amenity=water_point:
  (drop)
  (box)
  (pail)

[Tomasz-W]

Fixed, pixel aligned icons here: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/5b5b3fe7acd2d6cd9086337f3e5ee00a

[jeisenbe]

Could we try the man_made=water_tap icon without the drop? I believe the tap alone would be sufficient.

@Tomasz-W, you mentioned on #1224 that we could use the HDM drinking water well icon for amenity=water_point (+ drinking_water=yes). Could you make a version of that icon without the cup, for use with amenity=water_point + drinking_water=no?

[Tomasz-W]

@jeisenbe

Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/5b5b3fe7acd2d6cd9086337f3e5ee00a