[Tagging] electric zigarrettes

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 16:34:48 UTC 2015

On 22/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-04-22 9:19 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
>> Well, electronic cigarettes aren't really smoking in the first place,
>> unless you want to claim that a teapot boiling is "smoking", which is
>> something most people realize isn't the case by the time they're 10...
> +1, e-cigarettes should IMHO not be covered by the "smoking" tag, because
> they have nothing to do with smoking. Yes, it is a form of nicotin
> consumption, but so are nicotin pills, chewing gum, patches, chewing
> tobacco, sniffing tobacco and maybe others. None of them is covered by
> "smoking", there is no "smoke".

That's taking the word much too litteraly. The reason behind all the
anti public-smoking laws is that non-smokers are subjected to the
product and most of the associated health risks. Pills, patches and
gums are different because you can't be a "passive pill swallower".
The fact that e-cigarettes seem less harmfull (it'll take many years
to properly quantify the risk) doesn't change that. The "it isn't
actual smoke" argument is a technicality, a PR stunt, a legal hack
enabling nicotine addicts to smoke in public.

Getting back to the subject of OSM, for places that do distinguish
between classic- and e-cigarettes, I suggest using a namespace for the
sake of consistency, discoverability, and compatibility :

smoking=yes/no/outside/etc for the general value
smoking:<type>=yes/no/etc for exceptions
With <type> being any of cigarette, e-cigarette, hooka, marijuana, opium, etc.

More information about the Tagging mailing list