[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 21:06:19 UTC 2015
On 19/02/2015 9:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-02-18 23:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>>:
> I believe there are still some issues with this proposal.
> For one the concept is still not clear/logical with the currently
> suggested values
> IMHO you should decide whether this tag will work like
> waste_collection=type of collected waste or like waste_collection=type
> of waste collectors (object). Currently you are mixing up those two
> (e.g. "cigarettes" is a kind of waste, "household_bin" is a kind of
> object to collect waste),
Cigarette bin then? It is what I was thinking of .. and I think I found
it in one of my searches on OSM values? Don't recall.
I'm for objects .. some objects do state the type of waste sometimes as
that is for later processing, sometimes as it is part of there function.
Ok .. so I could append 'bin' to all the solid types .. but for liquids
.. what? 'Receptacle'? Is that acceptable?
> Secondly, the chosen generic term looses scale / size information,
> compared to introduced tags like waste_bin.
Oh.. how big is a waste bin? Some are small .. like the above cigarette
bins to large like skip bins ... So the word bun to me does not define
an expected size.
> The suggested key waste_collection=* doesn't give any information on
> the amount you can dispose at these places. Are these to be used on
> big plants/centres as well as on small bins? Then I'd expect to have
> another subtag to denote the size / amount of material you can
> dispose. E.g. for building material or earth you'd expect to be able
> to bring lorry loads of material, while for drugs or batteries the
> most common features are only accepting household quantities.
And a sub tag for fee, opening hours etc ..
I too would like a 'volume' tag .. but that is another proposal.... as
it could be used for other things .. capacity is used for parking ...
just a number without unit. 'Volume' would need a unit .. perhaps litres
.. as I say another proposal .. with separate discussion. There is
mention of 'size' or 'volume' on the proposal page .. but I've not taken
I note that building does not in it self define an expected size ..
having an area is a start but it then nneds a height.. So a volume sub
key would follow present OSM practice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging