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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 ?
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo