[Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

>
> you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't work.
> What are the benefits of the changes you propose?
>
> I think it is referring to the "front-end" or "user-experience" of the
toilet. In which case it wouldn't be both flush or pit, flush being water
carries it away, and pit being a drop directly into a stationary container.
The only "flush and pit" toilet I can think of would be a blackwater
system. Which I think could use something like toilets:method or
toilets:technology or anything else to define blackwater, septic, sewer,
ect...
So for example I would think of tagging a blackwater system like:

*amenity=toilets*
*toilets:type=flush*
*toilets:method=blackwater*

*composting=yes*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)


I prefer your alternative to the proposal page, although I think the
> ":type" is unnecessary, and toilets=pit would be better.
>

toilets=yes is already being used with amenity=* or shop=* to tag toilets
on premises. I don't know if this creates a conflict.


+1 for this alternative

Best,
Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130620/e42560f1/attachment.html>