[Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

[David Bannon]

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
lever key.

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....

David



> 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
> 
> amenity=waste_dog_excrement 
> amenity=waste_cigarettes
> amenity=waste_sharps
> 
> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging