Feature Proposal - RFC - Building Hydrant Inlet

Hi All. Following a recent discussion on the tagging mailing list, I have created a proposal for Building Hydrant Inlets.


You can discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page or here.

1 Like

Why do you propose a 2 tag representation and deprecation of the established dry riser inlet rather than proposing emergency=wet_riser_inlet and similar?

It’s explained in the Rationale:

It’s likely that many mappers aren’t familiar with the different type of inlets, but there is no way of tagging an unknown type of building inlet.

Two stage tagging might make sense if there are actually lots of mistaggings and OSM will be better off with a tag that has little to no practical meaning, but can be refined by second comers. I doubt that dry riser inlets are such a feature, very often they are prominently labelled. Any examples to the contrary?

this is not compelling, usually there is a sign, look at the pictures.

Yes they are well signposted in some countries, but in others the signage can be quite generic. For example: “FDC” or “Building Hydrant Inlet”

So I think it is useful to have a generic tag

1 Like

you could have a generic tag, just like we have building=yes and building=house and building=detached there could be emergency=water_inlet which would eventually be replaced by a more specific value when someone comes along who knows better.

1 Like

From what I understand, neither iD nor JOSM would be able to create a preset for a feature where the top-level tag changes depending on the subtype of that feature.

OSM seems to use subtags for this purpose in nearly all situations, which is explained in the wiki’s introduction to the tagging system. E.g. landuse=residential and residential=*. There are probably 100s of other examples. Is there a reason why this building water inlets should be different?