[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
jmapb at gmx.com
Tue Jan 7 16:40:30 UTC 2020
On 1/7/2020 7:26 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
> And yet the examples you give are shops, or shelves within shops.
> They are
> NOT boxes. On those grounds alone, "give box" is a very bad name. In
> any case,
> who is doing the giving to whom?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give-away_shop uses the generic term
> shop" (which I think is too clunky) and has alternatives "freeshop"
> and "swap shop."
> I think "freeshop" describes it far better than "give box." I think
> "swap shop" is
> a sub-category of "freeshop" in that a swap shop requires an exchange, and
> whatever we end up calling it we need a subtag to specify whether an
> is required.
From my limited experience (mostly USA), I have the impression that the
majority of these dinguses are boxes or cabinets rather than shops.
Personally I've encountered "hiker boxes" (commonly found in amenities
near hiking trails), free food boxes, free clothing boxes, free art
cabinets (just discovered those last week), and of course the venerable
public bookcase (which has its own tag.) All of these operate on the
give and/or take model -- I've never seen one where a swap is required.
I agree that amenity=reuse is not particularly specific and would be
prone to misinterpretation. But calling a cardboard box in the corner of
a post office "freeshop" doesn't seem right either.
If what's being tagged really is an entire shop, I'd probably prefer to
just use the shop tag, e.g. shop=second_hand + fee=no.
If we're looking for a new all-encompassing tag for things smaller than
an an entire shop, I'd suggest something like amenity=free_goods,
goods=*, goods:location=box/shelf/cabinet. (Would this also be used for
situations where swap is required? It's possible with a bit of troll
tagging, I suppose, like free_goods:swap_only=yes or some other awkward
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging