[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
dbannon at internode.on.net
Mon Feb 9 02:59:43 UTC 2015
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote:
> A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-)
Sigh ... .
OK, its a good solution but before I'd vote for it, I'd like someone to
explain a few things to me -
Firstly, how is rubbish= a better solution than the slight redefinition
of waste= ?? I mean declare waste= to be that higher level key, no
longer requiring amenity=waste_disposal. There are already 5K uses, I'd
be very surprised if any of those uses would be broken by the
Secondly, if we approve rubbish=, do we then mark the waste= approach as
obsolete, less preferred or whatever ? Having two ways of tagging the
same thing is bad IMHO.
Thirdly, dare I say this, will someone argue rubbish= indicates that
there is rubbish there, on that spot ? preferable to say
rubbish_disposal or something similar.
I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever
Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not
> At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key.
> Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people
> thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a
> case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of
> possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the
> values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need
> there own separate proposals.
> Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts
> and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'.
> Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be;
> A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station?
> B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=?
> C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that?
> Any other options?
> And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good.
> Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in
> that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path
> for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this
> would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like
> a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway
> my present view.
> I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a
> vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different
> choices that could be made.
> So possible closure on 2 march?
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging