[Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Feb 19 18:59:27 UTC 2015


On Feb 18, 2015 4:38 PM, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>>
>> Subject renamed for clarity.
>>
>> * leaving it as it is - easy choice
>> * Adding dump_station to waste=  - consistent with whats there now.
>> * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?)
>>>>
>>>> ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station
>>
>> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind
>>> of waste, not a place type to put waste
>>>  amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station
>>>  would be the obvious ones.
>>>
>> Thats a very good point Martin, a dump station is not a "waste" but it
>> is an amenity.
>>
>> That does differentiate it from much of the the other items listed under
>> waste=. We tend to use the name for the waste itself in many cases but,
>> I guess because of its nature, prefer to name the facility rather than
>> say "excrement", "sh**", whatever.
>>
>> Quite a good argument for elevating the proposed dump_station to amenity
>> rather than waste= in my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks Martin
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> For waste= ...  may be waste=black_water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29b
>
> May be waste=rv_black_water if needed to distinguish it from other
possible black water sources?

Why not KISS and tack on access=no, rv=yes in such a case?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150219/d1488ff5/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list