Proposal talk:Waterworks proposal
Water storage
Will the waterworks proposal include recommendations for tagging related to storage as well? I see "pumped, processed, treated and provided to end consumers" but I'm wondering where something like a cistern or rain barrel would fit into this scheme. Want to make I don't misinterpret your intentions too early on. @Fanfouer:--IanVG (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @IanVG: I completely agree about storage and it could be a specific (however vast) topic to address prior to deal with whole waterworks topic. Many features like water towers, covered reservoirs, tanks, basins could have a single waterworks tagging to state it's a water storage as to document water properties with a single taxonomy. It's currently a bit messy to get all water storage means in OSM due to a too large diversity of tags. It would be used later on this proposal to document treatment and processing chains which involves tanks and basins a lot. How do you feel about it? Fanfouer (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes! @Fanfouer: I completely agree! Okay so would creating a proposal for water storage might look something like key=waterworks=storage with storage=* maybe? You have far more experience than I in this realm, so is it better in your opinion to suggest something like key=waterworks=yes instead to simply state it within the class of waterworks features? Once I get your opinion I can go ahead and create a proposal with the title Waterworks Storage proposal. --IanVG (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- That great to read this :) We can start over a water storage proposal with water_works=storage to be added to the large diversity of man_made=* structures. I'll start the document shortly Fanfouer (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey @Fanfouer:, hope I didn't jump the gun, but I went ahead made a draft of the proposal on my user page here if you would like to take a look. If you think it's good, feel free to move to the real proposed_features page to enter the draft stage. Haven't done much there except change the picture and modify some statements. I think that some arguments have made over the years that have touched upon the issue of water storage on the wiki, so I'll go ahead and see if I can find any pro-statements. Best --IanVG (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- That great to read this :) We can start over a water storage proposal with water_works=storage to be added to the large diversity of man_made=* structures. I'll start the document shortly Fanfouer (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes! @Fanfouer: I completely agree! Okay so would creating a proposal for water storage might look something like key=waterworks=storage with storage=* maybe? You have far more experience than I in this realm, so is it better in your opinion to suggest something like key=waterworks=yes instead to simply state it within the class of waterworks features? Once I get your opinion I can go ahead and create a proposal with the title Waterworks Storage proposal. --IanVG (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Should this proposal cover devices or facilities?
Hi @IanVG:, currently the proposal sounds to cover devices like pumps, pipes... but shouldn't it cover facilities instead?
A good point would be to classify different facilities like potable water treatment plant, wastewater plants, store facility and so on. I'm not sure putting this information on individual devices will be so useful, aren't you?
Such a dedicated classification would be a good alternative to man_made=*. Fanfouer (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Fanfouer:, mmm, yes semantically I do associate waterworks with the facilities themselves, too. I guess I got carried away and tried to use this key to cover any and all kinds of water conveyance infrastructure.
I was also thinking that waterworks as a key would be a good alternative to man_made=*. But if you're suggesting that it would be better to classify potable water treatment plants with something like key:waterworks:potable (or not even namespaced like key:waterworks=potable_plant) that's something I could get behind.
I'll redraft some of the work I made, and if you want, take a look and see if you like it. --IanVG (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Water Tank Inlcusion
I'm not sure how the current tag emergency=water_tank should be affected by this proposal. It seems that it's current usage is limited exclusively storage containers (seems that open-air reservoirs are included there as well) utilized for fire suppression. --IanVG (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)