[Talk-de] Updating motorhome dump station tagging (English)

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 2015-04-21 21:20 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>:
>
> >   amenity=waste_disposal
> >   name=Aire de services camping-car
> >   waste_disposal:chemical_toilet=yes
> >   waste_disposal:grey_water=yes
> >
> > To:
> >   amenity=sanitary_dump_station
> >   name=Aire de services camping-car
> >
>
>
> Why would we remove the tags
> waste_disposal:chemical_toilet=yes
> waste_disposal:grey_water=yes
>

It's not about removing tags, rather about simplifying the tagging scheme
so that every tag has a clear meaning, and the greatest chance of getting
tagged correctly around the world.  It's also about reaching the type of
numbers, with a top level tag, that will attract the interest of the
osm-carto maintainers (
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1466 ).

I would certainly welcome and help promote some version of:

*waste_allowed=black_water;tank_chemicals;grey_water;bilge_water;radiator_flushings*


But "waste_disposal:chemical_toilet=yes" has already lead to significant
confusion between cassette stations and walk up toilets, and between the
type of connection point and the type of waste.  A "chemical_toilet" has a
specific connotation in the USA that's not this feature.  And while we're
at it "excrement" is impolite in USA English and not an alternative.    All
the UK tags are unclear because of this exact confusion: it's not possible
to work out what's on the ground without visiting the site again.

All 65 current continental European examples are the simple case and don't
even need additional subtags.




*Note: *To use a dump station I need several things:  *my vehicle needs to
fit, my vehicle needs to be of the allowed type, my connection needs to be
compatible, the waste I have needs to be acceptable, I need to be allowed
(e.g. be an overnight guest), and I might need to pay. * The tagging wants
to get all that done in a manner that's clear over multiple languages.

Keep in mind there are already French, German and Russian translations of
the current scheme: this is a worldwide feature.




> Regarding grey water I am not sure if tagging makes sense. Does grey water
> really need dedicated stations for disposal? In doubt I'd keep the tag.
>

There are in fact grey water *only* stations.

Separately, a common tent camping feature is a dish washing station
designed to keep campers from dumping dishwater on the ground.  That's
essentially the same feature: a place to dispose relatively clean water (no
chemicals, no sewage, no bilge residue).



> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Note that:
> > 1) All presently mapped German stations are tagged as accepting both
> > grey_water and sewage, and no site is mapped with chemical restrictions.
> >
>
>
> but it was mentioned by Gmbo that not all sites that exist do accept
> chemical toilet waste.


Yes, that's something I pointed out to Gmbo early on.

The Gmbo scheme assumes the choice is binary: either chemical additives are
allowed or not, and that the restriction may not even be visible at the
site.
The reality is more complex.  Some sites operate off a septic field and
allow some chemicals and not others.  I see this as far beyond the scope of
OSM to try and tag.  Thus some form of:

*sanitary_dump_station:chemical_restrictions=inquire_locally*


Is proposed.  To assume people will tag "chemicals_allowed=yes" on the tens
of thousands of "normal" facilities is unrealistic,
just like asking people to tag unremarkable trees with "denotation=cluster"
was unrealistic.

Tag the exception, not the rule.




> > 2) German mapper Gmbo has designed a tagging scheme for describing
> stations
> > in more detail: receptor type, height of the drain, chemical
> restrictions,
> > grey water only facilities.  Those tags can be added to the above, by a
> > mapper who knows the local area and station types.  No information will
> be
> > lost.
> +1



> 3) There is separate tagging for marine facilities for boats, as it is
> > improper to direct a motorhome driver to use a marine-only facility.
> >
>
> sounds reasonable
>