Re: [Tagging] Proposed features landuse=open_defecation RFC Proposed under way 2019-10-07
>From what I have read (few personal experience) I find it difficult to use the landuse-key for this, because it implies to me that the area is mainly used for open defecation (and has significant extent). If this is what you want to describe, the tag is fine. In many other cases I believe we would rather need a property like open_defecation=yes which can be added to other objects, e.g. landuse=residential. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed features landuse=open_defecation RFC Proposed under way 2019-10-07
I have covered this on previous posts but I think it is ready for RFC and then in two weeks voting. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation I have covered other options in the past eg landcover=open_defecation or open_defecation=yes but these were not appropriate or too vague Please discuss here or on discussion page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation Cheers Bob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation
On 13/09/19 12:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Thanks for working on this, Bob, Check out the page "Proposal_process" and in particular Proposal_process#Creating_a_proposal_page to help improve the formatting and make sure you've included important information. Please clarify exactly what should be mapped with this new tag. Is going to be added to whole villages, as suggested in the section about "open_defecation=yes? "It would have its own sign and could be used as a node or area. Although it may be added to small villages to indicate if it is their primary source of human waste disposal." This would not be a good idea, since it's not possible for mappers to confirm that every house or a majority of houses in a village lack latrines or toilet. But the rest of the page suggests that this tag is supposed to be applied to areas where there are visible signs, in other words, there's human feces exposed on the ground? There are a couple of problems with the proposed subtags. It's not best practice to use abbreviations or uppercase letters in tags, so instead of "ODA_" it should be "open_defecation_" or "open_defecation:", if need. "ODA_Radius_.." "ODA_area_size..." - The first two subtags are not needed - the area can be mapped instead, and this provides the shape and size just from the position of the nodes in the database. "ODA_survey_date=" - there is already a tag for this, survey:date=* or source:date=* , but it is recommended to add such information to the changeset rather than to individual OSM objects. "ODA_responsibility=" is unclear. What would this mean, and how would a local mapper in confirm this information? Possibly use the tag 'operator'? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator In general would this not be some government administrative responsibility? These can be mapped, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative "ODA_proposed_solution=" - Unfortunately, this is not appropriate for Openstreetmap. We map real, current features, not opinions, reviews or suggestions, because such information is too subjective for individual mappers to maintain. There is some tagging for planed future things. Most generally regard theses with some distaste and some things 'planned' are viewed as political promises that never get done. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_birth "ODA_abandoned=yes/no" - generally features in Openstreetmap should be current, so if an area that was used for open defecation in the past has now been abandoned, and there are no signs "on the ground", then it should be removed from the database. Some mappers use a prefix "abandoned:" like "abandoned:landuse=open_defecation". However, if the area is "disused" - not currently in use, but there are still signs that it was recently used, and perhaps it's still a health hazard because of the presence of decomposing human waste, this could be tagged with "disused=yes". Disused means it could be placed back into use with little effort. If the OD is a disposal area and 'full' then this description does not suit. I think if this OD is a transfer like facility then disused would suit, where as if it is a disposal facility then abandoned would be a better description. ODA_survey_hazardous materials_data_weblink= - I'm not sure what is intended by this tag. Perhaps the existing tag url=* would be sufficient? (I've also left these comments on the Talk page of the proposal, so we can continue discussion there) -Joseph Eisenberg On 9/12/19, Bob Kerr via Tagging wrote: I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use so it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to. Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which you would prefer. All the best Bob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation
open_defecation=yes seems a better tag for all situations where it is a significant phenomenon, while landuse=open_defecation would be ok for areas that are either designated for open defecation or are mainly used for it. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation
I have reworked the page as per your instructions, please let me know if it still needs more clarification. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation Cheers Bob > On 13 Sep 2019, at 03:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Thanks for working on this, Bob, > > Check out the page "Proposal_process" and in particular > Proposal_process#Creating_a_proposal_page to help improve the > formatting and make sure you've included important information. > > Please clarify exactly what should be mapped with this new tag. Is > going to be added to whole villages, as suggested in the section about > "open_defecation=yes? > > "It would have its own sign and could be used as a node or area. > Although it may be added to small villages to indicate if it is their > primary source of human waste disposal." > > This would not be a good idea, since it's not possible for mappers to > confirm that every house or a majority of houses in a village lack > latrines or toilet. But the rest of the page suggests that this tag is > supposed to be applied to areas where there are visible signs, in > other words, there's human feces exposed on the ground? > > There are a couple of problems with the proposed subtags. It's not > best practice to use abbreviations or uppercase letters in tags, so > instead of "ODA_" it should be "open_defecation_" or > "open_defecation:", if need. > > "ODA_Radius_.." "ODA_area_size..." - The first two subtags are not > needed - the area can be mapped instead, and this provides the shape > and size just from the position of the nodes in the database. > > "ODA_survey_date=" - there is already a tag for this, survey:date=* or > source:date=* , but it is recommended to add such information to the > changeset rather than to individual OSM objects. > > "ODA_responsibility=" is unclear. What would this mean, and how would > a local mapper in confirm this information? > > "ODA_proposed_solution=" - Unfortunately, this is not appropriate for > Openstreetmap. We map real, current features, not opinions, reviews or > suggestions, because such information is too subjective for individual > mappers to maintain. > > "ODA_abandoned=yes/no" - generally features in Openstreetmap should be > current, so if an area that was used for open defecation in the past > has now been abandoned, and there are no signs "on the ground", then > it should be removed from the database. Some mappers use a prefix > "abandoned:" like "abandoned:landuse=open_defecation". > > However, if the area is "disused" - not currently in use, but there > are still signs that it was recently used, and perhaps it's still a > health hazard because of the presence of decomposing human waste, this > could be tagged with "disused=yes". > > ODA_survey_hazardous materials_data_weblink= - I'm not sure what is > intended by this tag. Perhaps the existing tag url=* would be > sufficient? > > (I've also left these comments on the Talk page of the proposal, so we > can continue discussion there) > > -Joseph Eisenberg > >> On 9/12/19, Bob Kerr via Tagging wrote: >> I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation. >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation >> >> Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use >> so it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to. >> >> Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using >> the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which >> you would prefer. >> >> All the best >> >> Bob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation
Thanks for working on this, Bob, Check out the page "Proposal_process" and in particular Proposal_process#Creating_a_proposal_page to help improve the formatting and make sure you've included important information. Please clarify exactly what should be mapped with this new tag. Is going to be added to whole villages, as suggested in the section about "open_defecation=yes? "It would have its own sign and could be used as a node or area. Although it may be added to small villages to indicate if it is their primary source of human waste disposal." This would not be a good idea, since it's not possible for mappers to confirm that every house or a majority of houses in a village lack latrines or toilet. But the rest of the page suggests that this tag is supposed to be applied to areas where there are visible signs, in other words, there's human feces exposed on the ground? There are a couple of problems with the proposed subtags. It's not best practice to use abbreviations or uppercase letters in tags, so instead of "ODA_" it should be "open_defecation_" or "open_defecation:", if need. "ODA_Radius_.." "ODA_area_size..." - The first two subtags are not needed - the area can be mapped instead, and this provides the shape and size just from the position of the nodes in the database. "ODA_survey_date=" - there is already a tag for this, survey:date=* or source:date=* , but it is recommended to add such information to the changeset rather than to individual OSM objects. "ODA_responsibility=" is unclear. What would this mean, and how would a local mapper in confirm this information? "ODA_proposed_solution=" - Unfortunately, this is not appropriate for Openstreetmap. We map real, current features, not opinions, reviews or suggestions, because such information is too subjective for individual mappers to maintain. "ODA_abandoned=yes/no" - generally features in Openstreetmap should be current, so if an area that was used for open defecation in the past has now been abandoned, and there are no signs "on the ground", then it should be removed from the database. Some mappers use a prefix "abandoned:" like "abandoned:landuse=open_defecation". However, if the area is "disused" - not currently in use, but there are still signs that it was recently used, and perhaps it's still a health hazard because of the presence of decomposing human waste, this could be tagged with "disused=yes". ODA_survey_hazardous materials_data_weblink= - I'm not sure what is intended by this tag. Perhaps the existing tag url=* would be sufficient? (I've also left these comments on the Talk page of the proposal, so we can continue discussion there) -Joseph Eisenberg On 9/12/19, Bob Kerr via Tagging wrote: > I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation > > Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use > so it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to. > > Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using > the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which > you would prefer. > > All the best > > Bob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation
I have created a proposal page for landuse=open defecation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dopen_defecation Please review it, my wiki page editing skills have suffered from lack of use so it could do with a little tidy if anyone wants to. Please discuss your thoughts here. The most controversial area is I am using the landuse tag rather than open_defication = yes. Please let me know which you would prefer. All the best Bob___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
