Tagging drinking water source types

[meskobalazs]

The AddDrinkingWaterType quest handles disused elements in a non-intuitive way. One can specify that the source is still not in use by selecting the last option in the list, but I take issue with this:

1. It's not obvious from the quest, that it is currently tagged as disused in the first place.
2. Looking at the question, it suggests that it asks the type of the source, not if it works at all. These two things are conflated here.

So I have two possible suggestions:

• Simply do not touch disused water sources, and optionally have another quest to ask if the disused source is still disused.

OR

• Have a clearer question. Currently it says How is drinking water provided here?, I would suggest something along these lines Is drinking water available here? If so, what is its source?.

I believe the first one is the better option, but the second is much more easier to do, and it is good enough, I think.

[westnordost]

@matkoniecz this is your quest.

Generally, I agree with your reasoning.

[matkoniecz]

Both "have another quest to ask if the disused source is still disused" and retitling to "Is drinking water available here? If so, what is its source?" seems fine to me.

Not sure which one would be better.

[westnordost]

I think it is better to not ask again for disused water sources. Once a water source is disused, I am guessing that it is not likely to be made available again (anytime soon), and if, probably in a renovated manner (= the type may have changed, too).

[mnalis]

To me it makes sense to asks for disused water sources if they have become working again.

I see them (disused:amenity=drinking_water) being off and came back on from time to time (e.g. being unavailable due to vandalism, or draught, or road works e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3451060) and drinking water is very important tag (think rural areas, not middle of big cities where you can just go to nearest cafe), and it is not very spammy as implemented.

To me better wording seems good enough, but if people prefer cloned quest just for disused water source, that is also an option.

So I'd recommend it kept being asked for (if it is indeed abandoned for good, it can be re-tagged as abandoned:amenity=drinking_water instead)

[matkoniecz]

Once a water source is disused, I am guessing that it is not likely to be made available again (anytime soon)

Very large part of them got disabled during COVID, it was tagged in some cases and they are coming back.

Also, many vandalised or damaged are reappearing after some time

[bkil]

Many (novice) mappers are tagging taps closed for the winter as "disused" if it did not work at the moment of their survey, while in reality, they should use the operational_status and seasonal tags instead. It is valuable to resurvey such "disused" taps from time to time to fix such an error.

[mnalis]

Many (novice) mappers are tagging taps closed for the winter as "disused" if it did not work at the moment of their survey,

@bkil True, that is because they (especially being novice mappers!) can only say what they see at the moment - if it doesn't work, it is "disused" -- nobody can guarantee whether it will work in the future, and very very few have multi-year experience with that specific water source to estimate whether (most probable) reason for it not working is because it is seasonal=yes.

while in reality, they should use the operational_status

Well, operational_status=* has its own set of problems, so I would advise against using it...

and seasonal tags instead.

Yes, but see above, it is hard for average user to know if it is seasonal.

Perhaps Uh... answer It's working in specific season only to tag it as seasonal=yes might be acceptable, but very few SC users would discover and use it in any case.
For its part, StreetComplete skips asking the quest for those water sources already mapped as seasonal, to reduce such errors being introduced by SC users.

It is valuable to resurvey such "disused" taps from time to time to fix such an error.

Yes, AddDrinkingWaterType quest on disused:amenity=drinking_water is re-asked after 1 year. Or doesn't it work for you?

[matkoniecz]

I though about making description something like "permanently closed" or "forever inactive" reducing confusion for people aware that these are temporary (but making new issue for that may be a good idea)

[bkil]

@mnalis operational_status does not pose any problem at all and has no other viable substitute. The link mentions that life cycle prefix should be used (that we also recommend), but it does not make sense in many cases. Water taps needing maintenance is one such example, but the list goes on. See a traffic calming that is half broken (missing). You shouldn't tag it as disused/was/abandoned/removed either.

[matkoniecz]

@bkil operational_status is a terrible idea (as trolltag), but either way it is not a good place to discuss it (would be happy to discuss it on tagging mailing list or community forum, feel free to ping me if topic would exist)

[bkil]

@matkoniecz I have already asked you nicely multiple times to stop talking to me. If this behavior continues, the case will have to be escalated.

[westnordost]

Mr Nagy, this is a public issue tracker. You don't get to chose who replies to your posts. El 18 de julio de 2024 14:41:48 CEST, Thomas Nagy ***@***.***> escribió:

…

@matkoniecz I have already asked you nicely multiple times to stop talking to me. If this behavior continues, the case will have to be escalated. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #5171 (comment) You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Message ID: ***@***.***>