<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1424294367.9052.12.camel@davos-LT" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Subject renamed for clarity.
* leaving it as it is - easy choice
* Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now.
* Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind
of waste, not a place type to put waste
amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station
would be the obvious ones.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Thats a very good point Martin, a dump station is not a "waste" but it
is an amenity.
That does differentiate it from much of the the other items listed under
waste=. We tend to use the name for the waste itself in many cases but,
I guess because of its nature, prefer to name the facility rather than
say "excrement", "sh**", whatever.
Quite a good argument for elevating the proposed dump_station to amenity
rather than waste= in my opinion.
Thanks Martin
David
<big>
</big></pre>
</blockquote>
<big>For waste= ... may be waste=black_water
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29b">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29b</a><br>
<br>
May be waste=rv_black_water if needed to distinguish it from other
possible black water sources? </big><br>
</body>
</html>