Proposal talk:Drinkable
drinkable=yes for "no drinking water"
I wouldn't tag a water source as drinkable=yes when there is a sign saying "no drinking water", even though people drink it. A different value should indicate this situation, such as drinkable=discouraged or drinkable=prohibited, if it is even illegal. MHohmann (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's surely a conflict. I will give an example. Near my town in Germany is a spring with the sign "No drinking water". I'm drinking from this source for almost 20 years, so do many other people. If a thirsty hiker comes this way, this can be a good possibility to get drinkable water. "Discouraged" or "prohibited" don't give a hint, that the water is indeed drinkable. Maybe "conditional" expresses this situation. --Rudolf (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there is no clear line between drinkable and non-drinkable. Even if the water is polluted by bacteria, chances are you won't get sick. I heard about a scientist who publicly drank a cup of Cholera bacteria to prove that it's not dangerous if you are in good constitution. All ge hot was a diarrhoea.
- I doubt that a proposal with voting is needed for drinkable=*. The key is somewhat in use, obviously useful, and already mentioned in amenity=fountain and natural=spring. Just create a dedicated wiki page for key:drinkable and document the most popluar values (yes, no, mineral, unknown, unchecked). I think that they are self-explanatory. Additional values may be added later. If the meanings are doubtful, the talk page may be used for discussion. Just as always. It makes no sense if 10 people vote on something they don't use, and those who use it don't know about the voting. --Fkv (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't create a wiki page without an agreement of the values. The discussion shows that there is no consistent usage. Unfortunable the values are not self-explanatory. Nevertheless I will transfer this proposal to Proposed_features/drinking_water. --Rudolf (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Applies to : other suggestions
--FrViPofm (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- amenity=water_point already implicates "drinkable=yes". IMHO, we don't need to tag it twice. "drinkable=*" indicates whether water is drinkable for humans. I see no direct link to animal drinking.--Rudolf (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the law in France
According to the law in France [1] drinkable=yes should be put only in places where the quality of water is certified, all other places must have the mention "no drinking water", so must be tagged by default as drinkable=no.
But we all know that a lot of places are drinkable in spite of the mention. So we could have a kind of fallback for more subtle values.
| legal values | subtle values | note |
|---|---|---|
| yes | when it is said as drinkable by authorities | |
| no | when it is not said drinkable by authorities, but can be more precise with | |
| rainwater_tank | e.g. on a amenity=shelter | |
| catched_spring | e.g. on a amenity=fountain | |
| wild_spring | e.g on a amenity=watering_place | |
| unwatched | e.g. on a man_made=water_well, and mainly on a amenity=fountain mentioned as no drinking water | |
| undrinkable | for chemical reasons (pesticides...) or other... |
--FrViPofm (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- and often for very good reasons, members of my family lived in a hamlet with no water supply until one of the local widely used sources (Fontaine) was polluted with dysentery causing micro-organisms. Incidentally english also uses potable and one may be one can distinguish between safe sources and ones with a warning notice. SK53 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- IMHO "drinkable=yes" has no legal relevance. It means the water is drinkable, even without official control. Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging "drinkable=official". I would like to tag a spring in the mountains with "drinkable=yes", although you will never get a official clearance for this source of water. Your new values are interesting, but for me to complicated in the usage. --Rudolf (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Who says that this spring is drinkable ? You ? Because it is obvious for a spring in mountain ? So why adding the drinkable tag ? Because you were told it was drinkable ? But the one who told you that, certainly told it in such a way that you knew it was not official. Because you drunk it and did not die ? IMO, it is better to say nothing than saying subjective appreciation. Tagging the spring with 'unwatched' means rather "You can drink it as your own risk, as I did". On the ML, I gave an example of a spring said 'drinkable' by a local, that gave dysentery to a group. SK53 gave the same kind of example. It is where legislation helps. I could tag a highway with maxspeed=280 because I know it is technically possible to run so fast. But I would not. Why not taking in account the legislation, when it exists, and give more information, when available. --FrViPofm (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
'Mineral' should get an extra key
IMO drinkable=mineral should be removed from this proposal as it has nothing to do with the water quality. A separate tag should be used for special substances or believed healty effects of certain water sources.
--Grungelborz (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Related discussions
Just as a side remark:
There was a lengthy discussion about tagging the water quality on the German mailing list.
There is also a proposal about the quality of water on the Discussion page of the key drinking_water.
Last but not least one should consider that the tag should also be suited for less developed countries with different standards for water quality.
--Grungelborz (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Move proposal to "drinking_water="
According to the discussion in the tagging-mailinglist I will move this proposal to Proposed_features/drinking_water. So we can transfer "drinkable=" to "drinking_water=". The future tagging-scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. --Rudolf (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this proposition obsolete now? --Tigerfell 
(Let's talk) 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)