Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Brian Wolford
wrote:
>
> For what seem to be clear categories:
> flush, sealed pit, unsealed pit, removable/"batch" container
>

Then how does a typical composting toilet get tagged?  Flush?  Sealed pit?

And how do we get the chemical smell aspect into things?
sealed-pit-with-chemicals
sealed-pit-without-chemicals?

 

I count the manual flush toilets as flush (even you have to use a bucket).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - gross weight

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi,

I agree that the meaning is correct (legally), but I think we need to try
and simplify the jargon in the one line summary section. How about:

maxgross_weight: All vehicles have a registered upper limit on their
allowable mass (when fully loaded). This is often known as the "Gross
Weight", and it is found in the vehicle documentation. This tag indicates
the maximum value that can use the way irrespective of whether the vehicle
is fully loaded or not.

Obviously, keep the legal meaning, but add this (or similar) for people who
just want a quick answer.

Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

Composting:
What's catching me up is that that system is just _one_ type of composting
toilet. There are many types; dry (w/o urine), simple (w/ urine),
vermicompost(worms), electric(vent fan and stirrer), and blackwater for
example. And they can be presented in different ways, to operate like
modern toilets or not. Many compost-privies on hiking trails can run the
spectrum on type of composting being used. And many methods are used in
other low-resource environments. This is why I think it would be better to
tag composting separately and leave it available for further definition.
Maybe this is a proposal I should begin to work on.
http://www.oursoil.org/what-we-do/toilets/models/

Also, the stink-factor I think mainly relies on maintenance and up-keep. A
pit toilet does not have to any more stinky than a composter as long as
proper cover material is still used, and I've seem some composters that are
not properly kept and would rank up with the worst toilets to visit.

Haha, toilet:output=humanure.

For what seem to be clear categories:
flush, sealed pit, unsealed pit, removable/"batch" container

And then we also seem to need to clarify the port-a-potty.

And we also need to tag for two different reasons, 1) the
user experience and 2) analysis by sanitation experts.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Brian Wolford <
> worldwidewolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see the relevant difference, then, between an onsite compost
>> toilet and a pit, to the toilet experience.They are both an open drop where
>> you can see the waste.
>>
>
>  Perhaps the user experience difference is better captured in a out-of-osm
> voting system about how "stinky" a toilet is.
>
> We seem to agree that "water flush toilet" is a clear category.  But
> "pits" get murkier: chemical vs. no, vault vs. unlined pit,
> composting vs. pile of waste, portable bucket vs. permanent.
>
> A pit has a pile of human waste at the bottom.
> A chemical toilet drops the same waste into a liquid chemical.
> A composting toilet the majority of the waste is undergoing composition.
>  These all smell *completely* different.
>
> http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/47951/Won-t-That-Stink-Living-in-a-Green-Home-with-a-Composting-Toilet
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[fly]

On 20.06.2013 18:46, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Ok, good points. There are at least three major "front end" experiences,
> none of which are exclusive at any location:
> 
>  1. Squat
>  2. Sit
>  3. Urinal
> 
> And one fairly critical front-end refinement related to wiping:
> 
>  1. Toilet paper provided.
>  2. BYOP (Bring your own paper if you want it)
>  3. Rag provided (you wash it out yourself)

I do not need paper but a flexible tube with little water pressure and a
thumb can be used to clean yourself and flush the toilet.

fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[fly]

On 20.06.2013 21:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Brian Wolford
> mailto:worldwidewolf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I don't see the relevant difference, then, between an onsite compost
> toilet and a pit, to the toilet experience.They are both an open
> drop where you can see the waste.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the user experience difference is better captured in a
> out-of-osm voting system about how "stinky" a toilet is.
> 
> We seem to agree that "water flush toilet" is a clear category.  But
> "pits" get murkier: chemical vs. no, vault vs. unlined pit,
> composting vs. pile of waste, portable bucket vs. permanent.

In Asia it is quite common to flush manually (e.g. you have a water
filled bucket next to toilet and a small bowl to get the water in the
toilet.

> A pit has a pile of human waste at the bottom.
> A chemical toilet drops the same waste into a liquid chemical.
> A composting toilet the majority of the waste is undergoing composition.
>  These all smell /completely/ different.
> http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/47951/Won-t-That-Stink-Living-in-a-Green-Home-with-a-Composting-Toilet

Yeah, quite a big difference ! Myself, has no problem with the first and
third solution but I try to avoid the second one and rather find my own
place and use a shovel.

fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Brian Wolford
wrote:

> I don't see the relevant difference, then, between an onsite compost
> toilet and a pit, to the toilet experience.They are both an open drop where
> you can see the waste.
>

Perhaps the user experience difference is better captured in a out-of-osm
voting system about how "stinky" a toilet is.

We seem to agree that "water flush toilet" is a clear category.  But "pits"
get murkier: chemical vs. no, vault vs. unlined pit,
composting vs. pile of waste, portable bucket vs. permanent.

A pit has a pile of human waste at the bottom.
A chemical toilet drops the same waste into a liquid chemical.
A composting toilet the majority of the waste is undergoing composition.
 These all smell *completely* different.
http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/47951/Won-t-That-Stink-Living-in-a-Green-Home-with-a-Composting-Toilet
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

I don't see the relevant difference, then, between an onsite compost toilet
and a pit, to the toilet experience.They are both an open drop where you
can see the waste. I think it's better to use composting= for designating
if its composting and how. Especially since it can or cannot apply to
multiple types. And many people have an interest in composting objects.

I would replace composting with chemical in the toilet:vault options. Or
maybe "portable" is a better option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_toilet

toilets:vault =[flush,
pit ,bucket,portable]

I like portable better than chemical. I think there is a big difference
between the other types of toilets and a portable one. And this distinction
is a very important one when mapping sanitation objects for humanitarian
use. So it is better it gets  designated and documented in a proper way.

+1 on rendering not being able to pick up more than 2 or 3 types, or
needing to. In disclosure, I am influenced by the complexity of sanitation
objects I have had to map with HOT and other orgs, but it is useful and
needed info.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> To me a bucket is a bucket. What happens *outside the toilet* is of no
> relevance to the toilet experience.
>
> The use of chemicals is, however, relevant.   Chemically sensitive people
> for example may avoid chemical toilets of any style.
> Does that have to be a tag of its own?
>
> toilets =yes
> *toilets:chemical*=[yes,no]
> toilets:vault 
> =[flush,vault,pit 
> ,bucket,composting]
> toilets:positions=[urinal,seat,squat]
> toilets:wheelchair 
> =[yes,limited,designated,no]
> drinking_water =yes
> fee=no
>
> That said, I can't see rendering engines using more than two icons:
> "toilet" and some form of "outhouse".
> All our composting and chemical dreams aside, those are the two most
> important subdivisions.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Brian Wolford <
> worldwidewolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is great.
>> One note on composing. Compost toilets can be both fixed location pits,
>> and buckets. I'm familiar with systems where buckets (5 to 40 gallons) are
>> filled with waste and then dumped on a local compost or picked up by a
>> third party and brought to a human waste composing center.
>>
>> I would say toilets:waste=flush,pitlatrine,bucket. And then add the
>> established composting=yes tag to tag as composting. This also covers flush
>> composters.
>>
>> I would also like to see chemical toilets brought back in somehow. They
>> are important WASH objects in camp mapping.
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clean up *=milestone (WAS: pk vs kp on *=milestone and default unit?)

[fly]

On 18.05.2013 01:14, ppece wrote:
> Hi. I'm from polish OSM society. We're currently running local
> competition to map milestones and we're using this scheme.
> 
>> * I would suggest to use distance= (mileage= is not metric) instead of
>> pk/kp and km (kilometre) as default unit.
> 
> I agree with that. We were close to develope new tagging scheme with
> "distance" key instead of "pk", but we eventually found this scheme in
> wiki. We stick "pk" only beceuase it is already in use in some countries
> like Germany. "pk" says nothing about the tag and (as far as i know) is
> not related to english, but french. If there is opportunity to change,
> "distance" key will be better than "pk" (kilometre as default unit).

So, do we need a proposal to change from pk=* to distance ?

ATM JOSM is not rendering pk=* but it would render our designated tag
within days and also warn about the deprecated tag.

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Bryce Nesbitt]

To me a bucket is a bucket. What happens *outside the toilet* is of no
relevance to the toilet experience.

The use of chemicals is, however, relevant.   Chemically sensitive people
for example may avoid chemical toilets of any style.
Does that have to be a tag of its own?

toilets =yes
*toilets:chemical*=[yes,no]
toilets:vault 
=[flush,vault,pit 
,bucket,composting]
toilets:positions=[urinal,seat,squat]
toilets:wheelchair 
=[yes,limited,designated,no]
drinking_water =yes
fee=no

That said, I can't see rendering engines using more than two icons:
"toilet" and some form of "outhouse".
All our composting and chemical dreams aside, those are the two most
important subdivisions.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Brian Wolford
wrote:

> This is great.
> One note on composing. Compost toilets can be both fixed location pits,
> and buckets. I'm familiar with systems where buckets (5 to 40 gallons) are
> filled with waste and then dumped on a local compost or picked up by a
> third party and brought to a human waste composing center.
>
> I would say toilets:waste=flush,pitlatrine,bucket. And then add the
> established composting=yes tag to tag as composting. This also covers flush
> composters.
>
> I would also like to see chemical toilets brought back in somehow. They
> are important WASH objects in camp mapping.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

This is great.
One note on composing. Compost toilets can be both fixed location pits,
and buckets. I'm familiar with systems where buckets (5 to 40 gallons) are
filled with waste and then dumped on a local compost or picked up by a
third party and brought to a human waste composing center.

I would say toilets:waste=flush,pitlatrine,bucket. And then add the
established composting=yes tag to tag as composting. This also covers flush
composters.

I would also like to see chemical toilets brought back in somehow. They are
important WASH objects in camp mapping.
On Jun 20, 2013 12:47 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt"  wrote:

> Ok, good points. There are at least three major "front end" experiences,
> none of which are exclusive at any location:
>
>1. Squat
>2. Sit
>3. Urinal
>
> And one fairly critical front-end refinement related to wiping:
>
>1. Toilet paper provided.
>2. BYOP (Bring your own paper if you want it)
>3. Rag provided (you wash it out yourself)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Major back-end experiences include:
>
>1. Flush (waste is carried away after each use)
>2. Pit (waste remains on site)
>
> But it divides down more than that:
>
>1. Pits
>   1. unlined pits (waste drops into a hole -- the most common type.
>When full, a new hole is dug nearby.)
>   2. lined pits  (waste drops into a vault which is periodically
>   pumped out)
>   3. composting (waste drops into an on-site composting vault, with
>   potential for reduced odor)
>   4. chemical (a lined vault is filled with a chemical.  common on
>   portable toilets).
>   5. bucket (just a bucket someone has to remove periodically).
>2. Flush
>   1. Water flushing (clean water is used to help remove waste).
>   2. Waterless flushing (e.g. Water Free Technolgies)
>
> There's also a squat/sit combo just to jazz things up:
> (See http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Pedestal-squat-toilet.jpg
>  )
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But the important distinctions may be less.  I'd be happy with no more
> than three categories:
>
>- Flush toilet
>- Open pits (where you see the waste)
>- Composting (where the waste is continually treated, and often not
>apparent)
>
>
> Thus it might be:
>
> toilets=yes  or amenity=toilets
> toilets:position=(squat,seat,urinal)
> toilets:waste=[flush,pitlatrine,composting,bucket]
> toilets:paper=no
> fee=[yes,no]
>
> Where a multiple value of "toilets:position=seat;urinal" would be most
> common in Western countries.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Ok, good points. There are at least three major "front end" experiences,
none of which are exclusive at any location:

   1. Squat
   2. Sit
   3. Urinal

And one fairly critical front-end refinement related to wiping:

   1. Toilet paper provided.
   2. BYOP (Bring your own paper if you want it)
   3. Rag provided (you wash it out yourself)


--

Major back-end experiences include:

   1. Flush (waste is carried away after each use)
   2. Pit (waste remains on site)

But it divides down more than that:

   1. Pits
  1. unlined pits (waste drops into a hole -- the most common type.
   When full, a new hole is dug nearby.)
  2. lined pits  (waste drops into a vault which is periodically pumped
  out)
  3. composting (waste drops into an on-site composting vault, with
  potential for reduced odor)
  4. chemical (a lined vault is filled with a chemical.  common on
  portable toilets).
  5. bucket (just a bucket someone has to remove periodically).
   2. Flush
  1. Water flushing (clean water is used to help remove waste).
  2. Waterless flushing (e.g. Water Free Technolgies)

There's also a squat/sit combo just to jazz things up:
(See http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Pedestal-squat-toilet.jpg )

[image: Inline image 1]









But the important distinctions may be less.  I'd be happy with no more than
three categories:

   - Flush toilet
   - Open pits (where you see the waste)
   - Composting (where the waste is continually treated, and often not
   apparent)


Thus it might be:

toilets=yes  or amenity=toilets
toilets:position=(squat,seat,urinal)
toilets:waste=[flush,pitlatrine,composting,bucket]
toilets:paper=no
fee=[yes,no]

Where a multiple value of "toilets:position=seat;urinal" would be most
common in Western countries.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> IMHO this is somehow different (you won't have named streets inside an
> apartment building, like you might have on a camp ground).
>

The apartment proposals on the Wiki try to separate out those routes (which
may be hallways) based on the notion that
different doors give you access to different ranges of apartment numbers.
There's also the 3D aspect: apartments are often stacked, unlike
campgrounds.

That said:
The internal routes on either campgrounds or apartments may not have
relevant names.
Any tagging scheme needs to account for sites scattered along nameless
roads.

Short cuts in addressing abound, and any of the following should be enough
to get you to the site:

"Site 53, Camp Hypothetical"
"Room 53, Hypothetical Building"
"Apartment 53, Hypothetical Arms Apartments"
"Site 53, Camp Hypothetical, Road 10-L"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

> Well, you also have the old-style outhouse, where you have a small
> building, including a seat, located above a pit which receives the waste.
> The temporary latrines used at construction sites are much the same, except
> that the "pit" is the bottom portion of the latrine, and the whole thing is
> hauled away to be emptied. I have seen parks where these "temporary"
> portable latrines are in year-round use, to spare the expense of having to
> install water supply pipes and sewers.
>

"Port-a-Potties" would be "chemical" under this scheme. I think the big
difference between "pit" and "bucket" is that a pit would be stationary
where the container that receives the waste for bucket is removed and
dumped somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_toilet

Chemical toilets are often permanent features in displaced-person camps
(speaking for Haiti), as well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?

[fly]

On 11.06.2013 16:05, fly wrote:
> Am 11.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Greg Troxel:
>> fly  writes:
>>
>>   > Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
>>   > 
>>   >   Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
>>   >   be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir
>>   >   and protection zones.   (I have an attitude that landuse will often
>>   >   align with parcel boundaries.)
>>
>>   There are already protected areas under boundary [1]. So reservoirs
>>   would be class eleven or 15.
> 
> Class eleven is for drinking water like your example below.
> Class 15 is fro flodding like my example.
> 
>> This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think
>> boundary=protected_area is off.  The basic issue is that we (I) are
>> trying to denote landuse, not boundary.  Rendering the inside of a
>> boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me; boundaries are linear
>> features.   And "protected_area" is a kitchen sink concept.
> 
> They define an area like a national reserve or park but also low
> priority protections. Please think of a flooding area which primary
> landuse might be forest or meadow.
> 
>>> I was looking for a more tighter definition of landuse=reservoir which
>>> would not include the whole flooding area but the area which primary use
>>> is the reservoir including the water, the dam and any facility like a
>>> tool shed.
>>
>> I think this is the crux of the issue.  I am referring to reservoirs
>> which are hard to tell from lakes, other than the "public water supply -
>> no trespassing" signs.
> 
> So the water is tagged with water=reservoir (access=no) and we need a
> landuse value for the primary area around it. I do not like
> reservoir_protection though. Can we find a different name as I was
> thinking about protected areas. Maybe something simple like
> reservoir_ground or _area.

We could also use landuse=reservoir_landuse as an temporary tag and
change it back after the data clean up. (~ two years).

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 20/giu/2013, at 17:03, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Err, not quite.  Pretty much any large apartment community has named streets, 
> with addresses on those streets, albeit with red signs (permissive streets) 
> or black signs (restricted-access streets).


fine, I was writing about the building. Obviously if we are talking about a 
whole area there will be named streets and you'll use those for the address. 

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[John F. Eldredge]

Well, you also have the old-style outhouse, where you have a small building, 
including a seat, located above a pit which receives the waste.  The temporary 
latrines used at construction sites are much the same, except that the "pit" is 
the bottom portion of the latrine, and the whole thing is hauled away to be 
emptied.  I have seen parks where these "temporary" portable latrines are in 
year-round use, to spare the expense of having to install water supply pipes 
and sewers.


Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 2013/6/20 Brian Wolford 
> 
> > you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't
> work.
> >> What are the benefits of the changes you propose?
> >>
> >> I think it is referring to the "front-end" or "user-experience" of
> the
> > toilet. In which case it wouldn't be both flush or pit, flush being
> water
> > carries it away, and pit being a drop directly into a stationary
> container.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> +1 for flush being water carrying it away, but I thought pit would
> refer to
> a hole in the "ground" (or floor, i.e. a place where you stand to do
> your
> business) as opposed to a seat, but now I understand you see this as
> opposed to being attached to the sewers? IMHO the most important
> "front-end" experience is the distinction between standing and being
> seated
> (when it comes to toilet typology).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[fly]

On 20.06.2013 16:55, Brian Wolford wrote:
> 
> 
> +1 for flush being water carrying it away, but I thought pit would
> refer to a hole in the "ground" (or floor, i.e. a place where you
> stand to do your business) as opposed to a seat, but now I
> understand you see this as opposed to being attached to the sewers?
> 
> 
> Not necessarily sewers, but that water carries the waste away.
> Blackwater and septic are flush w/o sewer connection.
>  
> 
> IMHO the most important "front-end" experience is the distinction
> between standing and being seated (when it comes to toilet typology).
> 
> 
> Good point.
> What if it looked something like:
> 
> toilets=[yes/seated/standing/no]
> toilets:type=[flush/pit/chemical/bucket]
> toilets:method=[sewer/septic/blackwater/(various-types-of-composting)/(proper-word-for-dig-a-new-hole-when-full)/(emptied-by-truck)/user
> defined,...]
> 
> Thoughts?

Reminds me of the signs in Asia: "Do not stand on the toilets"

As western "sitting" toilets are not common people tend to stand
crouching on the toilets.

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

[fly]

On 17.06.2013 20:26, Alberto wrote:
> Ok, I've a solution. I will change the word  with .
> animal_breeding=;;...
> Where in place of animal you must write the English common name of animal
> bred. This is simple and maintains consistency with animal_shelter and
> animal_boarding.
> If you want to specify the scientific name, you can add other tags like
> taxon=* or species=* or genus=*.
> Is this a good deal?
> Alberto

+1

Thanks


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> IMHO this is somehow different (you won't have named streets inside an
> apartment building, like you might have on a camp ground). Anyway, for
> apartments there is addr:door, addr:flats, addr:unit, addr:suite and maybe
> more (getting these from taginfo, but at least some are also documented in
> the wiki IIRR).


Err, not quite.  Pretty much any large apartment community has named
streets, with addresses on those streets, albeit with red signs (permissive
streets) or black signs (restricted-access streets).  I had one such
apartment at Shadow Mountain...it had a street address and an apartment
number, but it was a little redundant since my apartment was the only
apartment with that house number.  This definitely isn't a one-off
situation, I'd almost call it the norm for large apartment complexes in the
midwest.  Larger caravan sites, especially those with larger, more
permanent trailers in the mix (there's a bit of an overlap between RV parks
and residential trailer parks in the midwest) also often have house numbers
that differ from the lot number, though the street address only corresponds
with a specific lot.  Yes, it confuses us, too, sometimes...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

>
> +1 for flush being water carrying it away, but I thought pit would refer
> to a hole in the "ground" (or floor, i.e. a place where you stand to do
> your business) as opposed to a seat, but now I understand you see this as
> opposed to being attached to the sewers?
>

Not necessarily sewers, but that water carries the waste away. Blackwater
and septic are flush w/o sewer connection.


>  IMHO the most important "front-end" experience is the distinction between
> standing and being seated (when it comes to toilet typology).
>

Good point.
What if it looked something like:

toilets=[yes/seated/standing/no]
toilets:type=[flush/pit/chemical/bucket]
toilets:method=[sewer/septic/blackwater/(various-types-of-composting)/(proper-word-for-dig-a-new-hole-when-full)/(emptied-by-truck)/user
defined,...]

Thoughts?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: wheelchair:toilets=yes/no

[fly]

On 17.06.2013 23:10, Holger Dieterich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> here's the request for comments on my first proposal:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilet
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilets
> 
> Please give me feedback.

Still think we should use toilets:wheelchair=* to get it in common with
amenity=toilets and toilets=*.

fly



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/6/20 Erik Johansson 

> I think this discussion seems a lot like the one on "apartment
> numbers"  we had a while back. I couldn't find it though.
>
>

IMHO this is somehow different (you won't have named streets inside an
apartment building, like you might have on a camp ground). Anyway, for
apartments there is addr:door, addr:flats, addr:unit, addr:suite and maybe
more (getting these from taginfo, but at least some are also documented in
the wiki IIRR).

I'd use either ref (seems natural) or addr:lot for the lots on a campsite.
Don't use addr:housenumber if it's not an official address (i.e. if the
camping has it's own address of street and housenumber, like it normally
is).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/6/20 Brian Wolford 

> you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't work.
>> What are the benefits of the changes you propose?
>>
>> I think it is referring to the "front-end" or "user-experience" of the
> toilet. In which case it wouldn't be both flush or pit, flush being water
> carries it away, and pit being a drop directly into a stationary container.
>



+1 for flush being water carrying it away, but I thought pit would refer to
a hole in the "ground" (or floor, i.e. a place where you stand to do your
business) as opposed to a seat, but now I understand you see this as
opposed to being attached to the sewers? IMHO the most important
"front-end" experience is the distinction between standing and being seated
(when it comes to toilet typology).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Erik Johansson]

I think this discussion seems a lot like the one on "apartment
numbers"  we had a while back. I couldn't find it though.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM, fly  wrote:
> On 18.06.2013 05:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I'm thinking it might be time to revive this proposal:
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
>
> Interesting proposal
>
>> In which, the space my 5th Wheel has been for the last half a year would
>> be part of a site relation.  The node or closed way representing my spot
>> would be tagged...
>>
>> addr:housenumber=801
>> addr:street=North Mingo Road
>> ...
>> lot:number=252
>> caravan=designated
>> tent=no
>
> lot:street and lot:number are analog to addr:* but if you tag each lot
> ref=* seems to me the right tag for the number.
>
> Please do not use addr:street and addr:housenumber but use a new tag if
> you need to use addr:* tags.
>
> Cheers
> fly
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
/emj

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Brian Wolford]

>
> you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't work.
> What are the benefits of the changes you propose?
>
> I think it is referring to the "front-end" or "user-experience" of the
toilet. In which case it wouldn't be both flush or pit, flush being water
carries it away, and pit being a drop directly into a stationary container.
The only "flush and pit" toilet I can think of would be a blackwater
system. Which I think could use something like toilets:method or
toilets:technology or anything else to define blackwater, septic, sewer,
ect...
So for example I would think of tagging a blackwater system like:

*amenity=toilets*
*toilets:type=flush*
*toilets:method=blackwater*

*composting=yes*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)


I prefer your alternative to the proposal page, although I think the
> ":type" is unnecessary, and toilets=pit would be better.
>

toilets=yes is already being used with amenity=* or shop=* to tag toilets
on premises. I don't know if this creates a conflict.


+1 for this alternative

Best,
Brian
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[fly]

On 18.06.2013 05:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm thinking it might be time to revive this proposal:
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site

Interesting proposal

> In which, the space my 5th Wheel has been for the last half a year would
> be part of a site relation.  The node or closed way representing my spot
> would be tagged...
> 
> addr:housenumber=801
> addr:street=North Mingo Road
> ...
> lot:number=252
> caravan=designated
> tent=no

lot:street and lot:number are analog to addr:* but if you tag each lot
ref=* seems to me the right tag for the number.

Please do not use addr:street and addr:housenumber but use a new tag if
you need to use addr:* tags.

Cheers
fly



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Last call for comments on Proposed features/childcare2.0

[John Sturdy]

I think we should be able to make the age range explicit, via an "age="
tag, e.g. "age=1-4" rather than only making it implicit through terms such
as "kindergarten".

Otherwise, looks good to me.

__John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 20/giu/2013, at 07:22, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> I see a an alternative of:
> toilets:type=[flush,pit,chemical,bucket]
> 
> Thus we might have:
> 
> amenity=toilets
> toilets:type=pit
> drinking_water=yes
> fee=no


you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't work. What 
are the benefits of the changes you propose?

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Last call for comments on Proposed features/childcare2.0

[Philip Barnes]

Some also provide school holiday care for school age children.
How about
holiday_club = yes/no
max_age=

Phil (trigpoint)

--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 20/06/2013 5:23 def onion wrote:



Hi Andreas,


thank you for your comment.The cenario that you describe can be modelled with 
the tags i proposed. If you take a look at example 2 at the wiki page this 
should become more clear. The example you provided would be written as:


amenity=childcare

kindergarten=yes

after_school=yes

opening_hours=*


It might be helpful to use the opening_hours tag with a prefix as you proposed 
like after_school:opening_hours to describe different times for the different 
parts of the childcare facility. But I don't see an advantage using prefixes 
for the other tags.


Regards

defonion



Hi,

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/childcare2.0
 The proposal seems intuitive but has lots of disambiguations. What if there is 
a kindergarten with an after school included? I'd propose amenity=childcare, 
childcare:kindergarten=yes, childcare:after_school=yes, childcare:after_school:
opening_hours=*, etc. I know it's longer, I know it's more difficult to write 
but editors nowadays should really take care of this and this is the logical 
way to do it. --andreas.balzer 20:51, 18 June 2013 (GMT+1)

Andreas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving "pitlatrine" proposal from 2011

[John Sturdy]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> Looking at the old proposal page for
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:pitlatrine
>
> I see a an alternative of:
> toilets:type=[flush,pit,chemical,bucket]
>
> Thus we might have:
>
> *amenity=toilets*
> *toilets:type=pit*
> *drinking_water=yes*
> *fee=no*
>
>
I prefer your alternative to the proposal page, although I think the
":type" is unnecessary, and toilets=pit would be better.

__John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging