[Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?
dbannon at internode.on.net
Fri Feb 6 22:56:56 UTC 2015
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 19:31 +1100, Warin wrote:
.... reasoned arg against (eg) amenity=waste_dog_excrement....
Yes, Warin, you are probably right, while a more sensible syntax, it
will be resisted as too big a change.
An alternative might be to declare that (eg) waste=waste_dog_excrement
is on a par with amenity=, so waste= can be used without
amenity=waste_disposal. In other words, bumping waste= up to a higher
While a big change in principle, its technically trivial, existing tags
in the database will still be valid, no changes needed, just in future,
taggers can leave out the redundant amenity=waste_disposal
The problem there is treating waste= as a high level tag. Considering
just how big an issue waste disposal is to humanity, I cannot help but
think its justified.
But won't be surprised if there are dissenters....
> On 5/02/2015 12:04 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You mean a one step? Like highway= x ?
> > To do that I'd think a new supper key waste= at the top
> > level! And maybe that is what it needs! If there are enough
> > different kinds then why not?
> > waste=rubbish_bin
> > waste=skip_bin
> > waste=dump_point
> > waste=chemical_toilet
> > waste=dog_excrement
> > waste=sharps
> > waste=cigarettes
> > waste=excrement
> > What does it take to justify a top level tag?
> > I think he means that if we use a top level amenity tag like
> > amenity=waste_disposal we are forced to make another whole set of
> > sub keys to describe the waste being disposed of. At least that's
> > where my criticism comes from. If however we can agree on a tag of
> > amenity=dump_point and define it as "a facility where one can dump
> > or discharge the waste tanks of an RV or recreational boat" it can
> > be understood and rendered by evaluating only that single tag.
> > Whether the waste being dumped is from a "chemical toilet" or from a
> > plastic bag on a "porta-potty" or "cassette" then becomes
> > irrelevant. The facility will handle it.
> > This new top level tag might make the approval process easier too.
> > Standing alone as it would, it nicely separates garbage and trash,
> > or recyclables, from sewage and doesn't require any other
> > potentially lengthy approvals for new subkeys.
> The present sub tag already exists and is in use .. for oil,
> cigarettes, grey_water, drugs, dog_excrement, etc .. so they still
> have to be evaluated for a true render of the facility. If what is
> required is a one tag entry for each waste type then amenity= will be
> over loaded eg
> Note the inclusion of waste in the name .. so people don't think that
> they are places that sell the stuff! :)
> about 8 + around 28! if you include waste recycling...
> and I think it then needs to be a top level tag .. like shop=,
> tourism=. sport= etc. as there are too many of them .. and that would
> be opposed as it is a lot of work to change the present data and a lot
> of work to change the renders... at least another category of
> amenity ... presently
> * 2.1 Sustenance
> * 2.2 Education
> * 2.3 Transportation
> * 2.4 Financial
> * 2.5 Healthcare
> * 2.6 Entertainment, Arts & Culture
> * 2.7 Others
> Add '2.8 Waste'? I don't know.. just pointing out the possible
> future problems?
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging