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

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael 
> 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=

[John F. Eldredge]

On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael  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=

[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 everyone everywhere?

ael


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

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

[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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[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*
> 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=

[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 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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Dave Swarthout 
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=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

> ? 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=

[Dave Swarthout]

Er, not the tag. I meant the term dump station.


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Dave Swarthout 
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 :
>>
>>> > > 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=

[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 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  wrote:

>
> 2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :
>
>> > > 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=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :

> > > 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=

[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 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=

[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 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=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 18.02.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Jan van Bekkum :
> 
> 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=

[Warin]

On 18/02/2015 5:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
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=

[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 
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=

[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 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=

[Warin]

On 18/02/2015 11:33 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt > 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=

[Dave Swarthout]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, David Bannon 
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=

[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 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=

[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 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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, David Bannon 
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=

[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 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=

[John F. Eldredge]

On February 17, 2015 6:23:00 AM CST, Jan van Bekkum  
wrote:
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
> > 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

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).

-- 
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=

[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 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 
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 
> 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=

[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 
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=

[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.  

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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, David Bannon 
wrote:

>
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt 
> ..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=

[David Bannon]

> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  
..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=

[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 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=

[Dave Swarthout]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  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=

[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 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=

[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 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=

[Warin]

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

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

[Warin]

On 17/02/2015 6:45 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon 
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=

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon 
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=

[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.

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=

[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 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. 

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 
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

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

[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 ...

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=

[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 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=

[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 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

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

[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 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=

[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 ?  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

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

[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 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

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

[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 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