[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 23:47:58 UTC 2015


I would see it as

waste_collection=glass
fee=no

then another node - they would be at different places other why separate 
them..

waste_collection=paper
fee=yes


For example... This reuses the fee= key .. together with its sub tags. 
And you can have other keys that already exist .. like opening_ hours 
etc etc.

Now you vote on the key waste_collection=

Later you vote on the value waste_collection=glass .. and another vote 
on waste_collection=paper etc etc.

This minimises distractions from the proposal, keeps it simple and easy 
to see what problems there may be and deal with them.


On 22/02/2015 6:26 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Maybe we have to be able to specify per type whether it is waste or 
> recycling and whether you have to pay for it or not.
>
> e.g. for the "containerparks" (that's how we call them here in Flanders)
>
> amenity=xxx
> xxx:glass_bottles=recycling_no_fee
> xxx:sand=waste_plus_fee
> ...
>
>
> the values are not good, but maybe you can come up with something better.
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 22/02/2015 9:55 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I see no need to replace the recycling scheme, sorry.
>>
>>
>
>
>     Ok ... do you see a need to have a key waste_collection=  at all? 
>     Or should OSM continue to have amenity= values made for each kind
>     of waste collection point? Thoughts?
>
>     There is no way to exclude or to include recycling in the key
>     waste_collection= ... unless it become even larger such as key
>     waste_collection_recycling= key waste_collection_non_recycling= .
>
>     Do remember that the tag values I have given (_as in one person!_)
>     are _suggested values_ .. each value should have its own proposal
>     .. and discussion. Including the recycling issue IF it is accepted
>     as a key.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150227/ac39e08e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list