On Feb 18, 2015 4:38 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon wrote: >> >> Subject renamed for clarity. >> >> * 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 (?) >>>> >>>> ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station >> >> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> >>> semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind >>> of waste, not a place type to put waste >>> amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station >>> would be the obvious ones. >>> >> Thats a very good point Martin, a dump station is not a "waste" but it >> is an amenity. >> >> That does differentiate it from much of the the other items listed under >> waste=. We tend to use the name for the waste itself in many cases but, >> I guess because of its nature, prefer to name the facility rather than >> say "excrement", "sh**", whatever. >> >> Quite a good argument for elevating the proposed dump_station to amenity >> rather than waste= in my opinion. >> >> Thanks Martin >> >> David >> >> > For waste= ... may be waste=black_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29b > > May be waste=rv_black_water if needed to distinguish it from other possible black water sources?
Why not KISS and tack on access=no, rv=yes in such a case?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
