Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-19 Thread ael
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-19 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-19 Thread John F. Eldredge
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread SomeoneElse
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread ael
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*

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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 -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Jan van Bekkum
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,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Tod Fitch
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
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.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread Jan van Bekkum
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread Dave Swarthout
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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread David Bannon
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-10 Thread Warin
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 ?

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-08 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-08 Thread David Bannon
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