[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
dbannon at internode.on.net
Sat Feb 14 00:02:51 UTC 2015
Warin, others, no further thoughts on a new high level tag indicating
rubbish disposal facilities ?
Background is that this came up while tagging campsite but its potential
use is far greater. We have many high level tags and most relate to
activity that generates rubbish, lets deal with it !
To summarise discussion, structures like -
is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_
be tagged. Further, many "sites" be they mining, camping, whatever are
large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is
rubbish=chemical_toilet is, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like
rubbish_disposal= ???? waste_disposal= ???
Lets see some hands please ?
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > > A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-)
> > Sigh ... .
> I find it amusing..
> > 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.
> There you have a very good point. And waste_disposal fits well too
> Ok .. humm disposal ... could imply no recycling ... what about
> waste_collection ?
> That may not have been used in OSM before .. so no conflict... nice.
> What do you think? ... change rubbish to waste_collection?
> > I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever
> > Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not
> > rubbish_receptacle_desk !!
> :-) That is the spirit.
> > (sorry)
> > David
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish
> > >
> > > 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=?
> > > OR
> > > 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
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging