Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan. chemical_toilet_disposal_point seems obvious and transparent to everyone everywhere? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. It's lengthy, but the clearest of any of the alternatives I have seen. The proposal now sits at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan. chemical_toilet_disposal_point seems obvious and transparent to everyone everywhere? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It's lengthy, but the clearest of any of the alternatives I have seen. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 22:42 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. Agree. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_dump_station, to avoid ambiguity. Disagree. While the term here in AU is dump point, I'd suggest no one who plays in this area would be in any doubt what it means. But add rv in there and maybe it means rv vehicles only ? Not cassette toilets. And, here the term sanitary disposal usually relates to feminine hygiene. Anyone know what the term is in Europe ? David ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use in the tag seems a good idea. Please suggest an alternative Martin. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use in the tag seems a good idea. there are no occurences of waste=dump_station currently in the db, but there are several thousand subtypes of waste: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/waste#values Please suggest an alternative Martin. amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station would be the obvious ones. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 19:15, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English. dump_station should be fine. Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I'd never heard the term before this thread. When I had caravan holidays inflicted upon me as a child, Elsan* disposal point was the usual term, though that was many years ago. Cheers, Andy * a brand name ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: How long can this discussion continue? Let's try approaching this a different way: what are some reasons for _not_ adopting this tag? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many amenity tags. A dump_station is just as much an amenity as a toilet or a parking place. Steps to make this happen: * Make a proposal wiki page. * Find an open source icon. * Conduct a wiki vote. * Start tagging. * (Controversial) find existing dump stations tagged other ways, and if you can find supporting documentation,update the tagging. * File a JOSM issue report on a preset * File an iD issue report about a preset * File a P2 issue report about a preset * Continue tagging * Push for rendering support in appropriate maps, especially the default osm-carto. * Seek out communities of RV'ers or others interested in mapping additional spots. * Seek out communities of POI mappers interested in shifting to OSM. * Search park maps for dump stations and (if government documents in your country are open source compatible) copy the locations. * Go on a trip. Map what you find. Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English. dump_station should be fine. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:36:16PM +, SomeoneElse wrote: Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English. dump_station should be fine. Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I'd never heard the term before this thread. When I had caravan holidays inflicted upon me as a child, Elsan* disposal point was the usual term, though that was many years ago. I have been wondering if I was the only native UK English speaker who finds the term dump-station unintuitive and opaque. I also have never encountered the term in British English. So +1. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
How long can this discussion continue? Several agree that waste=dump_station is ambiguous, and I think all the other top level waste=* proposals are too. That tag must be subservient to another top level tag to remove its inhereht ambiguity I'm pushing for amenity=dump_station because it isn't ambiguous and is in relatively common use. Let's try approaching this a different way: what are some reasons for _not_ adopting this tag? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many amenity tags. A dump_station is just as much an amenity as a toilet or a parking place. Dave On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use in the tag seems a good idea. there are no occurences of waste=dump_station currently in the db, but there are several thousand subtypes of waste: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/waste#values Please suggest an alternative Martin. amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station would be the obvious ones. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
Er, not the tag. I meant the term dump station. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: How long can this discussion continue? Several agree that waste=dump_station is ambiguous, and I think all the other top level waste=* proposals are too. That tag must be subservient to another top level tag to remove its inhereht ambiguity I'm pushing for amenity=dump_station because it isn't ambiguous and is in relatively common use. Let's try approaching this a different way: what are some reasons for _not_ adopting this tag? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many amenity tags. A dump_station is just as much an amenity as a toilet or a parking place. Dave On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use in the tag seems a good idea. there are no occurences of waste=dump_station currently in the db, but there are several thousand subtypes of waste: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/waste#values Please suggest an alternative Martin. amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station would be the obvious ones. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
2015-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: ? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many amenity tags. yes, this is something that occassionally pops up, but there is really no actual problem behind this. Maybe the idea is that someone offering presets to his users (for example) would have them grouped just the way the tags are, and someone would have to open the amenity list and find thousands of values, so they think if we introduced eat_and_drink as key and move related POIs over there we could relieve the pressure on amenity, but this is not how it works. Other issues might be catch-all rules of some kind. Clearly, having more different keys allows for easier pre-filtering and maybe faster lookup with some database schemes, but the way osm-carto works until today (column-based) puts a very high hurdle on every new key before it could get rendered. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: amenity=dump_station fee=yes last_check:fee=2015-01-01 opening_hours=24/7 operator=Happy Camper Campground brand= website= dump_station:rinse_water=no wheelchair=yes payment:credit_cards=yes payment:bitcoin=yes note=24/7 access with credit card, else pay bitcoin or cash at the store during opening hours. phone=+15105551212 And look at the other dump station websites (http://www.sanidumps.com/ ) to see what they collect. Best would be to have an open source icon in SVG (Scalable Vector Graphic) format. And support is best in JOSM, iD, and the OSM Carto Stylesheet. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 11:33 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal problem the other tags normally associated with amenities can be used. fee=* access=* ... ... Cheers, Dave Not just 'associated with amenities' .. they can be used for anything.. leisure= for instance. Maybe there needs to be a wiki page on the 'universal associated tags'? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. Warin, lets face facts, only you and I have spoken in favour of waste_collection=. Two have spoken against it. Need I remind you of the words of the OSM Guardians before they left this mortal world = Yea, be there but one nay vote, there must be no less than 10 and 5 votes, less the proposal be lost The First Wiki, chap 7, verse 4 waste_collection= is not going to fly ! So, we need to chose between * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) Honestly, by a small margin, I'd prefer middle option. If we move human waste out of waste= why not the others ? But I don't care ! Please, put something up for a vote and I'll vote for it. Just get it done, this has gone on for far too long. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal problem the other tags normally associated with amenities can be used. fee=* access=* ... ... Cheers, Dave -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
Am 18.02.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 4:52:39 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. Warin, lets face facts, only you and I have spoken in favour of waste_collection=. Two have spoken against it. Need I remind you of the words of the OSM Guardians before they left this mortal world = Yea, be there but one nay vote, there must be no less than 10 and 5 votes, less the proposal be lost The First Wiki, chap 7, verse 4 waste_collection= is not going to fly ! So, we need to chose between * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) Honestly, by a small margin, I'd prefer middle option. If we move human waste out of waste= why not the others ? But I don't care ! Please, put something up for a vote and I'll vote for it. Just get it done, this has gone on for far too long. David ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. Dump stations are often treated as amenities of a rest area or campground. They rarely stand alone: they're usually part of something else. The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_dump_station, to avoid ambiguity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 5:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. A) The present waste= key is meant to be used under either the keys 'amenity=waste_basket' or 'amenity=waste_disposal', not to stand by itself. B) Dual tags of the one type on one node lead to confusion! For example; amenity=toilet fee=$5 fee=$15 Which fee do you pick? Same with amenity=waste_disposal waste=paper waste=dog_excrement They should be on different nodes to avoid one or more tags being dropped, or possibly one rendered symbol over writing another? Dump stations are often treated as amenities of a rest area or campground. They rarely stand alone: they're usually part of something else. The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_dump_station, to avoid ambiguity. sanitary .. can be taken as a female waste product... avoid in this use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Feb 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: It would also be good to have a tag for a site accepting household toxic wastes such as used batteries, cleaning chemicals, leftover paint, and the like. Here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, such substances are not supposed to included in the regular garbage pickup, or flushed down a drain. Instead, there is a single facility for the whole city, where such toxic products are supposed to be brought by the consumer (given the inconvenience, and the fact that you have to pay a $5.00 per visit tipping fee, I suspect that most of this ends up in the regular garbage collection anyway). Agree that it would be good for a tag for such a site. In my area some toxic items like used batteries and motor oil are picked up curbside along with the normal household rubbish as long as they are properly packaged (batteries in a bag on top of the recycle bin, used oil in a screw top plastic jug which they provide set on the curb). For other items like left over paint, pesticides, etc., there are monthly free drop off days at the local transfer station. No fee for residents for either as the cost is built into the regular trash collection. I can see where making it difficult with only one location and with an additional fee would greatly reduce use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. However that said, the large mapping community for RV dumps is not on OSM: http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. +1 for amenity=dump_station Cheers, Dave On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you think such a tag will need its own subtags ? I'm thinking of things like fee, access to large vehicles, cassette v holding tank, hmm, what else ? Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee or amenity=dump_station:fee=yes Anyway, I'll support any reasonable proposal, we need a promotable solution. David PS - I suspect we can do better than any f the existing ones you listed below :-) http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 18/02/2015 8:32 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, just sceptical that it will succeed. Do you think such a tag will need its own subtags ? I'm thinking of things like fee, access to large vehicles, cassette v holding tank, hmm, what else ? Do you propose something like - amenity=dump_station dump_station=fee or amenity=dump_station:fee=yes Should not the present tags be used?! fee= as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fee That avoids a lot of duplication throughout OSM. Anyway, I'll support any reasonable proposal, we need a promotable solution. David PS - I suspect we can do better than any f the existing ones you listed below :-) http://www.sanidumps.com/ http://openpois.net/ http://www.poi-factory.com/ http://www.rvdumps.com/ http://rvdumpsites.net/about/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/ra/RVStations.htm http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/pdf/dumpstationslist.pdf And then the proposal should follow the existing situation. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_disposal so tag amenity=waste_disposal -exists waste=dump_station - new That is how I see it .. either; you stick with the present system i.e.all waste goes under either amenity=waste_basket or amenity=waste_disposal OR go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly they have nothing to add, or just see it as a good idea and may vote later or see it as a lost cause. I too would like to see them speak up - any direction they chose. But so few speak up. a few more vote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
What other uses exist in practice in addition to *waste=chemical_toilet? * For camping we have run into two cases I would like to have covered: 1. Disposal of chemical toilet contents: a place where you carry a tank to empty and clean it 2. A sink in the street: you drive your RV over it to empty waste water tanks that are fixed in the car Or do you also want to cover split collection of glass, plastic, organic material, etc.? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 12:16:29 PM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. +1 for amenity=dump_station Cheers, Dave On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. Bryce, I agree, my own interest here is I'm heading out on a trip, in an RV, in a couple of months. I'd like to map these things, need to know where they are. My particular interest here is camping and emptying my holding tank, but there is a huge list of other people who have some other pet need. I understand the community is (reportedly) reluctant to cater to each of those needs individually with yet another amenity tag. Maybe I am wrong, lets see who stands up ? There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv% 20dump.png Truth is, we'll need a lot of use before the rendering people can help. amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? Not sure I agree. If we document it properly, its searchable and pretty easy to tag. And we say amenity=waste_disposal and the waste is XXX. Agree I'd prefer a high level tag but its not bad like that, really. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? The mapping of potability for drinking water is in flux. However, toilet and drinking water tagging are well established already: amenity=campsite toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine toilets:wheelchair=no drinking_water=yes These are appropriate for a campsite marked as a node. For a more detailed mapping the node can be expanded to an area, and each individual toilet and drinking water source mapped. For waste disposal I would suggest: amenity=campsite toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine toilets:wheelchair=no drinking_water=yes *waste_disposal=yes*recycling:gas_bottles=yes Anything more complicated, and perhaps it's time for separate nodes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: .. discussion are resisting it as a top level tag (amenity=dump_station) Dave, a more consistent approach would be - amenity=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank. There is a common icon: http://www.broomfield.org/images/pages/N331/blue%20heading%20icons_rv%20dump.png amenity=waste_disposal + waste=chemical_toilet is a nested tag, and far less clear. Someone searching for a preset for this might not find it. And it's not entirely clear exactly what the waste is (the toilet or the contents of the toilet)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 17/02/2015 6:45 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net mailto:dban...@internode.on.net wrote: To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? The mapping of potability for drinking water is in flux. However, toilet and drinking water tagging are well established already: amenity=campsite toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine toilets:wheelchair=no drinking_water=yes These are appropriate for a campsite marked as a node. For a more detailed mapping the node can be expanded to an area, and each individual toilet and drinking water source mapped. For waste disposal I would suggest: amenity=campsite toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine toilets:wheelchair=no drinking_water=yes *waste_disposal=yes *recycling:gas_bottles=yes Anything more complicated, and perhaps it's time for separate nodes. ___ Waste colleting is wider than just camping sites. And that is the point of consdering it as a new high level tag. The porposal may have come out of consderation of camp sites .. but it has much wider use and so should not be considered as just for camping sites. Your suggested tag waste_disposal=yes .. would need further expansion .. bin for 'household refuse'?, bin for recycling, human waste collection point from a chemical toilet, etc, etc ... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
How in hell did the term pitlatrine get in there 1500 times? A weird construction of a multi-word term IMO. If anything it should be pit_latrine. As far as that goes, the tag toilet:disposal seems, to this reader at least, to indicate a place to discard toilets and be limited to the values yes or no. Are the people who dream up these tags speaking English? On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/02/2015 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-08 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. sorry for commenting a bit late on this. If I saw a tag like rubbish=transfer_station I would maybe expect a broken transfer station or something similar. A key should somehow describe what is tagged, i.e. which property, or what kind of object, but if I understand your proposal right, you want to tag an ashtray with rubbish=cigarettes, and with rubbish=transfer_station a facility? IMHO this is mixing up concepts. Using rubbish as an attribute and have a scheme such as (just an example): amenity=generic_waste_disposal and add then rubbish=cigarettes (i.e. ashtray) rubbish=oil (a place to put old oil) etc., i.e. using this as an attribute. This is also introducing the problem, that you will have to know whether your used materials/trash will get recycled or otherwise brought away (incinerated or buried etc.). cheers, Martin Moved on while you weren't looking. .. see [Tagging] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC though it has no page as yet.. waste-collection= .. is a fair description for most waste/rubbish points that are mapped and also covers recycling .. as it is waste and is usually collected for the mapped point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Waste colleting is wider than just camping sites. And that is the point of consdering it as a new high level tag. The porposal may have come out of consderation of camp sites .. but it has much wider use and so should not be considered as just for camping sites. It was unclear from the discussion and examples if the existing tagging was understood! --- While toilet drinking water tagging is reasonably stable, there are several camping waste related tags that are not. For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. There is a pretty standard symbol for this activity on rendered maps. Communities of RV'ers may well be attracted to mapping in OSM, if this feature type were widely rendered. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 16/02/2015 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-08 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. sorry for commenting a bit late on this. If I saw a tag like rubbish=transfer_station I would maybe expect a broken transfer station or something similar. A key should somehow describe what is tagged, i.e. which property, or what kind of object, but if I understand your proposal right, you want to tag an ashtray with rubbish=cigarettes, and with rubbish=transfer_station a facility? IMHO this is mixing up concepts. Using rubbish as an attribute and have a scheme such as (just an example): amenity=generic_waste_disposal and add then rubbish=cigarettes (i.e. ashtray) rubbish=oil (a place to put old oil) etc., i.e. using this as an attribute. This is also introducing the problem, that you will have to know whether your used materials/trash will get recycled or otherwise brought away (incinerated or buried etc.). cheers, Martin Moved on while you weren't looking. .. see [Tagging] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC though it has no page as yet.. waste-collection= .. is a fair description for most waste/rubbish points that are mapped and also covers recycling .. as it is waste and is usually collected for the mapped point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: While toilet drinking water tagging is reasonably stable, there are several camping waste related tags that are not. For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. @Bryce, +1 That's what I've been saying all along. The term dump_station is widely used in the U.S., even to the extent that official signs use the term (without the underscore, of course). People in this discussion are resisting it as a top level tag (amenity=dump_station) but it's one I think is very appropriate. And much better than waste=chemical_toilet, which is ambiguous (is the toilet the waste or its contents?) I have a similar objection to the term toilet:disposal=* Neither phrase is in common use in the U.S. -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:46 +1100, Warin wrote: ... though it has no page as yet.. True, and given the lack of support, I don't think it is likely to need one ! Lets drop this proposal. This particular proposal started when Dave S complained about multi tags needed but even he is distancing himself. I'm back to refining docs about using existing tags. David waste-collection= .. is a fair description for most waste/rubbish points that are mapped and also covers recycling .. as it is waste and is usually collected for the mapped point. ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: .. discussion are resisting it as a top level tag (amenity=dump_station) Dave, a more consistent approach would be - amenity=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet I have a published list of maybe 450 AU Dump Points and all are suited to large RV holding tanks and the small cassette systems. Sigh, no, three allow only the small cassettes !! What the ??? Anyway, if we accept the argument that amenity already has too many tags (not sure I do but..) all that needs happen is better docs relating to existing tags and, if you really don't like using chemical_toilet, some new waste= tag. I'd be happy to support waste=dump_station . David but it's one I think is very appropriate. And much better than waste=chemical_toilet, which is ambiguous (is the toilet the waste or its contents?) I have a similar objection to the term toilet:disposal=* Neither phrase is in common use in the U.S. -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
2015-02-08 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. sorry for commenting a bit late on this. If I saw a tag like rubbish=transfer_station I would maybe expect a broken transfer station or something similar. A key should somehow describe what is tagged, i.e. which property, or what kind of object, but if I understand your proposal right, you want to tag an ashtray with rubbish=cigarettes, and with rubbish=transfer_station a facility? IMHO this is mixing up concepts. Using rubbish as an attribute and have a scheme such as (just an example): amenity=generic_waste_disposal and add then rubbish=cigarettes (i.e. ashtray) rubbish=oil (a place to put old oil) etc., i.e. using this as an attribute. This is also introducing the problem, that you will have to know whether your used materials/trash will get recycled or otherwise brought away (incinerated or buried etc.). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I'm sorry to say, I sort of dropped out of the discussion when the small changes to camp_site we started with evolved into the current one. My mapping chores here in Thailand are so much more basic than the degree of specification you're talking about. Here you're lucky to find a waste_basket to tag and there are no dump_stations, dump_points, waste=chemical_toilet, or whatever we end up tagging the place to deposit the contents of RV holding tanks, in the entire country. I winced when I read that the tag rubbish was being proposed as a new top level tag. Sounds to these American ears as though another top level tag with Anglo-centric overtones will be adopted. g I'll continue lurking and when the time comes for a vote, will participate. On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:43 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
Warin, others, no further thoughts on a new high level tag indicating rubbish disposal facilities ? Background is that this came up while tagging campsite but its potential use is far greater. We have many high level tags and most relate to activity that generates rubbish, lets deal with it ! To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? David On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote: On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) Sigh ... . I find it amusing.. Thirdly, dare I say this, will someone argue rubbish= indicates that there is rubbish there, on that spot ? preferable to say rubbish_disposal or something similar. There you have a very good point. And waste_disposal fits well too Ok .. humm disposal ... could imply no recycling ... what about waste_collection ? That may not have been used in OSM before .. so no conflict... nice. What do you think? ... change rubbish to waste_collection? I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not rubbish_receptacle_desk !! :-) That is the spirit. (sorry) David https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need there own separate proposals. Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'. Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be; A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station? B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=? OR C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that? Any other options? And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good. Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway my present view. - I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different choices that could be made. So possible closure on 2 march? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David You asked for 'lets have some hands up' .. that implies a vote of sorts.. .. but I'd not move to a formal vote yet? I'd like some more peoples thoughts on the issue and words.. more comments.Support .. and criticism .. just an interest. There is a required minimum time for comments - two weeks .. with a name change to waste_collection perhaps two weeks from the change of name? I'd suggest a new proposal page with the new name .. provided there is some support for the name .. apart from you me? And any better names put forward? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 14/02/2015 11:02 AM, David Bannon wrote: Warin, others, no further thoughts on a new high level tag indicating rubbish disposal facilities ? Background is that this came up while tagging campsite but its potential use is far greater. We have many high level tags and most relate to activity that generates rubbish, lets deal with it ! To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? I'd split the voting up into A) waste_ vsrubbish_ And I'd go for waste_ A better word that applies to more things? B) collection vs disposal For me 'collection' as disposal may be the final resting place of the waste, collection is the more frequent case. --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) Sigh ... . I find it amusing.. Thirdly, dare I say this, will someone argue rubbish= indicates that there is rubbish there, on that spot ? preferable to say rubbish_disposal or something similar. There you have a very good point. And waste_disposal fits well too Ok .. humm disposal ... could imply no recycling ... what about waste_collection ? That may not have been used in OSM before .. so no conflict... nice. What do you think? ... change rubbish to waste_collection? I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not rubbish_receptacle_desk !! :-)That is the spirit. (sorry) David https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need there own separate proposals. Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'. Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be; A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station? B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=? OR C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that? Any other options? And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good. Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway my present view. - I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different choices that could be made. So possible closure on 2 march? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need there own separate proposals. Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'. Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be; A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station? B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=? OR C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that? Any other options? And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good. Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway my present view. - I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different choices that could be made. So possible closure on 2 march? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) Sigh ... . OK, its a good solution but before I'd vote for it, I'd like someone to explain a few things to me - Firstly, how is rubbish= a better solution than the slight redefinition of waste= ?? I mean declare waste= to be that higher level key, no longer requiring amenity=waste_disposal. There are already 5K uses, I'd be very surprised if any of those uses would be broken by the redefinition. Secondly, if we approve rubbish=, do we then mark the waste= approach as obsolete, less preferred or whatever ? Having two ways of tagging the same thing is bad IMHO. Thirdly, dare I say this, will someone argue rubbish= indicates that there is rubbish there, on that spot ? preferable to say rubbish_disposal or something similar. I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not rubbish_receptacle_desk !! (sorry) David https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need there own separate proposals. Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'. Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be; A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station? B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=? OR C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that? Any other options? And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good. Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway my present view. - I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different choices that could be made. So possible closure on 2 march? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
