Talk:Tag:man made=reservoir covered

Potable

• potable=yes, potable=no ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 December 2010

Or storage_tank?

How is it different from man_made=storage_tank+content=water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponzu (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 April 2011

Maybe you should ask the question there, because that proposal is newer.

landuse=reservoir + covered=yes + reservoir_type=water_storage also seems to be the same. --Fkv 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Waiting further thinking on this topic, I'd be in favour deprecating this value in favour of man_made=storage_tank (which is way more used). Fanfouer (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on what to use? I'm going ahead and using man_made=storage=tank with content=water and other tags. Also, if the tag usage were to completely switch, should the recommended tags be copied onto the current page for storage_tanks? --IanVG (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A refinement proposal left to be written to introduce water_works=storage and refine facilities dedicated to water storage. This is a medium term work, I'm now busy with Pumping --Fanfouer (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking on behalf of the Portuguese community, various past discussions have indeed favored the user man_made=storage_tank+content=water instead of man made=reservoir_covered. --Waldyrious (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

type=* vs. content=*

Someone edited the feature page and replaced type=* with content=*, listing the values:

 content=water - drinkable water
 content=drain - rain water

But on the content=* page, rain water is not distinguished from drinkable water, there's just content=water for any kind of water (except sewage). In order to get a "drinkable water" meaning, we would need to add a drinking_water=* or drinkable=* tag. But neither of those keys offers an equivalent for rain water. --Fkv (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We can just add content=drinking_water to the content page. And I think that "rain water" could be just "water" or "drinking_water" in case that it is drinkable and stored in proper conditions.

Chrabros (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We could do that, but it would neither reflect usage, nor would it retain existing information, which should be our primary goal IMO.

The existing tag type=water obviously means "drinkable water that is no rain water", as the water quality of rain water tanks (including German Zisterne) depends on many things including the air pollution at rain time.

What about a key like water_source=spring/ground/mains/rain/... ? This could also be used for other water related features such as man_made=water_tap, amenity=drinking_water, amenity=watering_place, natural=water etc. (Let's ignore for a moment that the water_source key is already in use with values that are a mess.)

That would make:

type=water => content=water + drinking_water=yes (and certainly water_source=mains or spring)

type=drain => content=water + water_source=rain

--Fkv (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

drinking_water=yes is for public drinking water on the spot.--Jojo4u (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is drinking water on the spot, but not necessarily publicly accessible (which is certainly what you mean). The drinking_water=* page says nothing about physical access, permission or ownership, because there are other tags such as access=*, owner=* and operator=* for these attributes. --Fkv (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)