[Tagging] Pumps (wells and many other things)

[Michael Patrick]

Since pumps have been a manufactured commodity for about 400 years (
https://www.worldpumps.com/general-processing/features/a-brief-history-of-pumps/
) there is an abundance of existing typologies and taxonomies dealing with
pumps. If the goal is a general tagging scheme that can further be refined
when needed to more detailed descriptions, there is a fairly low delta from
a complete scheme compared to an incomplete one which will grow by random
accretion. See  IEEE GlobalSpec's Engineering360
https://www.globalspec.com/pfdetail/pumps/types
There are public domain classification systems available also, like *UNSPSC*
# *4015151 *takes you to a  Stainless Steel Deep Well Submersible Pump. See
the section " 2.2. Industrial Categorization Schemes and Product Data
Management
in 'Inter-organizational Networks" in Integrated Product Ontologies for
Inter-Organizational Networks' at
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c471/40672c0c2e5a34c098fcd2809185537ee985.pdf
As a bonus, the UNSPSC is already translated to English, French, German,
Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese,
Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Hungarian.W3C has somewhat detailed
instructions how to approach building a typology for the .many other
things', one at
https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/w3pm/XGR-w3pm-20091008/#B.12 , there are
similar simpler cookbooks out there.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

“32 Tennant Creek” won’t work?

As mentioned, addr:full could work

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:48 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/3/20 1:57 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> there don't appear to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes
>
> Post office boxes are located at a post office usually, and that is
> mapped as amenity=post_office 
> -https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office
>
>
> I am not talking of the physical thing, but entering the address of a feature.
>
> Example:
>
> The Barkly Homestead
>
> Has an address of
>
> PRIVATE BAG 32
>
> Tennant Creek
>
> Northern Territory  0862
>
>
>
> In OSM I can enter the state, town and post code.
> addr:village=Tennant Creek
> addr:state=Northern Territory
> addr:postcode=0862
>
> I cannot enter the "PRIVATE BAG 32" as there is no OSM tag for it.
>
> Humm just came across addr:place, that may do?
> Err no "make sure there is a matching place 
> =* object of the same name to 
> keep data consistent. It is required by Nominatim for it to be able to find 
> the addresses using it"
> there is no place that is "PRIVATE BAG 32" or "POST OFFICE BOX 3" ...
>
>
>
> ???
>
>
> other delivery types:
> Roadside Delivery  RSD
> Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB
>
> Are these letter boxes located next to the road, but rather far away
> from the house?
>
> These are mapped as amenity=letter_box, I 
> believe?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dletter_box
>
> There is also amenity=post_box for a device where you deposite
> outgoing letters:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box
>
> Is anything else missing, which can't be mapped with these tags or
> with Key:addr:* ?
>
> If none of the common values of addr:* will work, you can use addr:full=*
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Afull
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 3/19/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While there are methods of entering street addresses there don't appear
> to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes and other
> delivery types.
>
> There is a proposal to may the existence of PO Boxes but no way to enter the
> address data for those that use them.
>
> As well as PO Boxes there exits several types of delivery methods in
> Australia, below are listed all of the officially accepted types with their
> officially accepted abbreviations.
>
> Care of Post Office  CARE PO
>
> Community Mail Agent.  CMA
>
> Community Mail Bag CMB
>
> Community Postal Agent  CPA
>
> General Post Office Box GPO BOX
>
> Locked Bag LOCKED BAG
>
> Mail Service MS
>
> Post Office Box PO BOX
>
> Roadside Delivery  RSD
>
> Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB
>
> Roadside Mail Service  RMS
>
> Private Bag  PRIVATE BAG
>
> These all appear in the same placement of the addressed article. Perhaps
> a new tag addr:delivery_type=* could be used?
>
> Examples>
>
> Mr Smith
>
> PRIVATE BAG 32
>
> Tennant Creek
>
> Northern Territory  0862
>
> addr:delivery_type=PRIVATE BAG 32
>
> Mr Jones
>
> GPO BOX 3
>
> Sydney
>
> NSW 2000
>
> addr:delivery_type=GPO BOX 3
>
> In these cases there is no house number, street. There are still
> city/state/country and postal codes.
>
> --
>
> References?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Mail_Box
> https://www.staff.uwa.edu.au/facilities/mail/formats
> https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/430096
> https://www.barklyhomestead.com.au/ -'contact us' they use PMB for
> Private Mail Bag.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

[Warin]

On 19/3/20 1:57 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

there don't appear to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes

Post office boxes are located at a post office usually, and that is
mapped as amenity=post_office -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office



I am not talking of the physical thing, but entering the address of a feature.

Example:

The Barkly Homestead

Has an address of

PRIVATE BAG 32

Tennant Creek

Northern Territory  0862



In OSM I can enter the state, town and post code.
addr:village=Tennant Creek
addr:state=Northern Territory
addr:postcode=0862

I cannot enter the "PRIVATE BAG 32" as there is no OSM tag for it.

Humm just came across addr:place, that may do?
Err no "make sure there is a matchingplace 
=*  object of the same name to keep data 
consistent. It is required by Nominatim for it to be able to find the addresses using it"
there is no place that is "PRIVATE BAG 32" or "POST OFFICE BOX 3" ...



???





other delivery types:
Roadside Delivery  RSD
Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB

Are these letter boxes located next to the road, but rather far away
from the house?

These are mapped as amenity=letter_box, I believe?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dletter_box

There is also amenity=post_box for a device where you deposite
outgoing letters:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box

Is anything else missing, which can't be mapped with these tags or
with Key:addr:* ?

If none of the common values of addr:* will work, you can use addr:full=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Afull

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/19/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

While there are methods of entering street addresses there don't appear
to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes and other
delivery types.

There is a proposal to may the existence of PO Boxes but no way to enter the
address data for those that use them.

As well as PO Boxes there exits several types of delivery methods in
Australia, below are listed all of the officially accepted types with their
officially accepted abbreviations.

Care of Post Office  CARE PO

Community Mail Agent.  CMA

Community Mail Bag CMB

Community Postal Agent  CPA

General Post Office Box GPO BOX

Locked Bag LOCKED BAG

Mail Service MS

Post Office Box PO BOX

Roadside Delivery  RSD

Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB

Roadside Mail Service  RMS

Private Bag  PRIVATE BAG

These all appear in the same placement of the addressed article. Perhaps
a new tag addr:delivery_type=* could be used?

Examples>

Mr Smith

PRIVATE BAG 32

Tennant Creek

Northern Territory  0862

addr:delivery_type=PRIVATE BAG 32

Mr Jones

GPO BOX 3

Sydney

NSW 2000

addr:delivery_type=GPO BOX 3

In these cases there is no house number, street. There are still
city/state/country and postal codes.

--

References?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Mail_Box

https://www.staff.uwa.edu.au/facilities/mail/formats

https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/430096

https://www.barklyhomestead.com.au/ -'contact us' they use PMB for
Private Mail Bag.



___
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] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> there don't appear to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes

Post office boxes are located at a post office usually, and that is
mapped as amenity=post_office -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office

> other delivery types:
> Roadside Delivery  RSD
> Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB

Are these letter boxes located next to the road, but rather far away
from the house?

These are mapped as amenity=letter_box, I believe?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dletter_box

There is also amenity=post_box for a device where you deposite
outgoing letters:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box

Is anything else missing, which can't be mapped with these tags or
with Key:addr:* ?

If none of the common values of addr:* will work, you can use addr:full=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Afull

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/19/20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While there are methods of entering street addresses there don't appear
> to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes and other
> delivery types.
>
> There is a proposal to may the existence of PO Boxes but no way to enter the
> address data for those that use them.
>
> As well as PO Boxes there exits several types of delivery methods in
> Australia, below are listed all of the officially accepted types with their
> officially accepted abbreviations.
>
> Care of Post Office  CARE PO
>
> Community Mail Agent.  CMA
>
> Community Mail Bag CMB
>
> Community Postal Agent  CPA
>
> General Post Office Box GPO BOX
>
> Locked Bag LOCKED BAG
>
> Mail Service MS
>
> Post Office Box PO BOX
>
> Roadside Delivery  RSD
>
> Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB
>
> Roadside Mail Service  RMS
>
> Private Bag  PRIVATE BAG
>
> These all appear in the same placement of the addressed article. Perhaps
> a new tag addr:delivery_type=* could be used?
>
> Examples>
>
> Mr Smith
>
> PRIVATE BAG 32
>
> Tennant Creek
>
> Northern Territory  0862
>
> addr:delivery_type=PRIVATE BAG 32
>
> Mr Jones
>
> GPO BOX 3
>
> Sydney
>
> NSW 2000
>
> addr:delivery_type=GPO BOX 3
>
> In these cases there is no house number, street. There are still
> city/state/country and postal codes.
>
> --
>
> References?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Mail_Box
>
> https://www.staff.uwa.edu.au/facilities/mail/formats
>
> https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/430096
>
> https://www.barklyhomestead.com.au/ -'contact us' they use PMB for
> Private Mail Bag.
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pumps (wells and many other things)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I oppose deprecating pump=powered, pump=manual, and pump=no. This is a
simple, clear system for use with water wells, and it is widely
supported.

1) Clarify use with man_made=water_well

Currently 88% of uses of pump=* are with man_made=water_well (the rest
are with amenity=drinking_water) and with the 3 values: pump=powered,
pump=manual, pump=no. This is a simple and intuitive system for
mapping wells in developing countries and rural areas.

Please clarify if you are asking mappers to add a separate
man_made=pump feature or if that should only be used when there is no
man_made=water_well feature.

Why should we drop the use of pump=powered, pump=manual, pump=no?
Distinguishing pump=powered, pump=manual is easy: you can hear the
sound of an electric or diesel motor, and a manual pump has an obvious
handle or similar. And pump=no is a well with a bucket or similar.

2) How can mappers figure out the technology of the pump?
How are mappers expected to find out the pump technology mechanism?
Most pumps are located deep inside the well, or hidden in a service
building or structure next to the well. And why would this information
be worth mapping?

3) Key:actuator
The proposal mentions: actuator=windmill, actuator=watermill, and
actuator=beam_engine. What do these have to do with pumps?

The current use of the key actuator is quite rare, but the documented
values are: actuator=manual, actuator=electric_motor,
actuator=pneumatic_cylinder, actuator=hydraulic_cylinder - these don't
seem to have anything to do with windmills and watermills?

What about the exiting tags man_made=windpump, man_made=windmill,
man_made=watermill? Are you proposing to deprecate these common tags?

(also in the examples "actuator=manual" is mentioned, but it isn't in the list)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/19/20, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> François,
>
> Could you please simplify the "==Proposal==" section and make it 100%
> clear:
>
> 1) What new Keys and Tags (Key=Value) are being approved by the proposal
> 2) What old Keys and Tags are being deprecated
> 3) Move the Proposal section to the top, before Rationale, so people
> will be clear on what the proposal is going to do if it is approved.
>
> This is the current "==Proposal==" section. It's not clear what new
> tags are being proposed and what old tags are being deprecated.
>
>
> "It is proposed to complete OSM tagging for pumps used in any domain
> with the following tags :
>
> man_made=pump
> pump:output=*
> pump=* is currenlty established to state if a water well runs with a
> powered or manual pump (actually how the pump is driven if it exists).
> We also need a terminology to define the pump technology as many sorts
> exist in industry. It's then proposed to refurbish this tag with
> values related to pumps mechnanisms.
>
> Devices used to drive pumps (and get water in case of water wells)
> would be better described with existing actuator=* tag instead of
> pump. handle=* is also suitable for manual pumps or emergency usage
> with manual action when power isn't available.
> This option allows to avoid pump:type=* as well."
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 3/19/20, François Lacombe  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following several discussions last month, including this one:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051385.html
>>
>> Here is a proposal regarding pumps, obvious devices we all more or less
>> know in industries or at home.
>> This knowledge is useful for water management, water accessibility,
>> industry moderation, emergency response...
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>>
>> Classification is based upon Wikipedia community extensive work about 15
>> different pumping mechanisms. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure some
>> technologies are still missing in the proposal.
>>
>> It's currently the most ambitious version, including pump=* conversion
>> for
>> machine mechanisms and moving driver description to existing actuator=*
>> Despite a consequent re-tagging effort (on water wells particularly),
>> here
>> are some pros arguments :
>> - Use more appropriate terminology and wider possibilities for drivers
>> with
>> actuator=*
>> - Avoid pump:type (:type doesn't bring any information)
>> - With 30k occurrences of pump=* and +100k for water wells, there is
>> still
>> more wells to qualify than already qualified with pump availability.
>>
>> Examples are for now incomplete. It would be great to have at least one
>> use
>> case of each value. Feel free to contribute if you have appropriate
>> pictures.
>>
>> Thank in advance for any comment, all the best
>>
>> François
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pumps (wells and many other things)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

François,

Could you please simplify the "==Proposal==" section and make it 100% clear:

1) What new Keys and Tags (Key=Value) are being approved by the proposal
2) What old Keys and Tags are being deprecated
3) Move the Proposal section to the top, before Rationale, so people
will be clear on what the proposal is going to do if it is approved.

This is the current "==Proposal==" section. It's not clear what new
tags are being proposed and what old tags are being deprecated.


"It is proposed to complete OSM tagging for pumps used in any domain
with the following tags :

man_made=pump
pump:output=*
pump=* is currenlty established to state if a water well runs with a
powered or manual pump (actually how the pump is driven if it exists).
We also need a terminology to define the pump technology as many sorts
exist in industry. It's then proposed to refurbish this tag with
values related to pumps mechnanisms.

Devices used to drive pumps (and get water in case of water wells)
would be better described with existing actuator=* tag instead of
pump. handle=* is also suitable for manual pumps or emergency usage
with manual action when power isn't available.
This option allows to avoid pump:type=* as well."

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/19/20, François Lacombe  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following several discussions last month, including this one:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051385.html
>
> Here is a proposal regarding pumps, obvious devices we all more or less
> know in industries or at home.
> This knowledge is useful for water management, water accessibility,
> industry moderation, emergency response...
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal
>
> Classification is based upon Wikipedia community extensive work about 15
> different pumping mechanisms. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure some
> technologies are still missing in the proposal.
>
> It's currently the most ambitious version, including pump=* conversion for
> machine mechanisms and moving driver description to existing actuator=*
> Despite a consequent re-tagging effort (on water wells particularly), here
> are some pros arguments :
> - Use more appropriate terminology and wider possibilities for drivers with
> actuator=*
> - Avoid pump:type (:type doesn't bring any information)
> - With 30k occurrences of pump=* and +100k for water wells, there is still
> more wells to qualify than already qualified with pump availability.
>
> Examples are for now incomplete. It would be great to have at least one use
> case of each value. Feel free to contribute if you have appropriate
> pictures.
>
> Thank in advance for any comment, all the best
>
> François
>

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pumps (wells and many other things)

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Following several discussions last month, including this one:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051385.html

Here is a proposal regarding pumps, obvious devices we all more or less
know in industries or at home.
This knowledge is useful for water management, water accessibility,
industry moderation, emergency response...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal

Classification is based upon Wikipedia community extensive work about 15
different pumping mechanisms. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure some
technologies are still missing in the proposal.

It's currently the most ambitious version, including pump=* conversion for
machine mechanisms and moving driver description to existing actuator=*
Despite a consequent re-tagging effort (on water wells particularly), here
are some pros arguments :
- Use more appropriate terminology and wider possibilities for drivers with
actuator=*
- Avoid pump:type (:type doesn't bring any information)
- With 30k occurrences of pump=* and +100k for water wells, there is still
more wells to qualify than already qualified with pump availability.

Examples are for now incomplete. It would be great to have at least one use
case of each value. Feel free to contribute if you have appropriate
pictures.

Thank in advance for any comment, all the best

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

[Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

[Warin]

Hi,

While there are methods of entering street addresses there don't appear 
to be any way to enter addresses that use Post Office Boxes and other 
delivery types.


There is a proposal to may the existence of PO Boxes but no way to enter the 
address data for those that use them.

As well as PO Boxes there exits several types of delivery methods in Australia, 
below are listed all of the officially accepted types with their officially 
accepted abbreviations.

Care of Post Office  CARE PO

Community Mail Agent.  CMA

Community Mail Bag CMB

Community Postal Agent  CPA

General Post Office Box GPO BOX

Locked Bag LOCKED BAG

Mail Service MS

Post Office Box PO BOX

Roadside Delivery  RSD

Roadside Mail Box/Bag  RMB

Roadside Mail Service  RMS

Private Bag  PRIVATE BAG

These all appear in the same placement of the addressed article. Perhaps 
a new tag addr:delivery_type=* could be used?


Examples>

Mr Smith

PRIVATE BAG 32

Tennant Creek

Northern Territory  0862

addr:delivery_type=PRIVATE BAG 32

Mr Jones

GPO BOX 3

Sydney

NSW 2000

addr:delivery_type=GPO BOX 3

In these cases there is no house number, street. There are still 
city/state/country and postal codes.


--

References?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Mail_Box

https://www.staff.uwa.edu.au/facilities/mail/formats

https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/430096

https://www.barklyhomestead.com.au/ -'contact us' they use PMB for 
Private Mail Bag.


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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Greg Troxel]

Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:

> Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'.
>
> Sorry, no - it's a standard term, at least around here! :-)

I am irritated by the misuse of barbecue to refer to large class of
anything to do with a grill.  Barbecue properly refers to cooking at low
heat for an extended period of time while drinking beer and issuing
cantankerous opinions, and is quite different from most uses of grills
and charcoal!

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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Warin]

On 19/3/20 4:27 am, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

Hi

Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use 
tray barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or 
taginfo. Suggestions?



The subject sounds like the disposal of the complete bbq.


Most of the public bbqs here are electric or gas to avoid the problems 
of fire risk and ash disposal, so not something I come across.



As Paul says

amenity=waste_basket (or waste_disposal if it's very big) + waste=*

waste=fire_hot? To denote the capability of tolerating hot items. For 
safety reasons I would expect these not to tolerate unburnt flammable 
items, I expect vandals will place cardboard and paper in them...





PS
Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'. It seems to 
serve no beneficial purpose & consensus/convention is that OSM doesn't 
abbreviate. It is never too late to change poor tagging.



Err... It does cause me to double think. I expect OSM not to abbreviate, 
yet on the odd occasion it does.




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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 03:27, Dave F via Tagging 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use
> tray barbecues.


Are you even allowed to dispose of hot ashes in your bins? I know our
Council-supplied domestic rubbish bins are marked "No hot ashes", mainly
because they're plastic!

Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'.


Sorry, no - it's a standard term, at least around here! :-)

  Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. Mar 2020, at 18:27, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use tray 
> barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or taginfo. 
> Suggestions?


I recall this has been discussed some time ago, but I’m not sure about the 
outcome ;-)

a generic waste disposal doesn’t nail it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Paul Allen]

Gah.  Using a laptop and the keys are not quite where I expect them.
Sorry for the partial message.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 17:59, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 17:27, Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use
>> tray barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or
>> taginfo. Suggestions?
>>
>
> amenity=waste_basket (or waste_disposal if it's very big) + waste=*
> seems to be the way to go.  There is an abandoned proposal to
> use rubbish=* instead of waste=* but that doesn't seem to
>

 be very popular.  Two uses as opposed to be 56,000.

I can't think of a good term that includes hot ash and hot tray bbqs.
Hot ash alone would be waste=hot_ash, then you can use
a semi-colon to add the value for the tray (except I can't think of
a good term for that on its own).

I'd have said that nobody would discard the tray while it's hot
because it would burn their fingers.  But then I remembered
how stupid some people can be.

For about a year, one of the dwellings in my terrace was occupied by
a pair of chavs.  Chavs who felt they would appear more sophisticated
if they cooked with tray bbqs, not in the privacy of their back garden
but out front where everyone could see.  The first time they did it,
they put the tray on the ground, which was asphalt, with the
result you might expect.  The second time they spotted the
wooden chair of their next door neighbour, so they put the
tray on that, leaving a nice char mark.  There were some
small concrete slabs out front, left by the builders, but the idea of
using one of those never occurred to these people.

waste=put_your_hot_bbq_trays_here_you_idiots perhaps?

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

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 17:27, Dave F via Tagging 
wrote:

>
> Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use
> tray barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or
> taginfo. Suggestions?
>

amenity=waste_basket (or waste_disposal if it's very big) + waste=*
seems to be the way to go.  There is an abandoned proposal to
use rubbish=* instead of waste=* but that doesn't seem to
h
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

[Dave F via Tagging]

Hi

Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use 
tray barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or 
taginfo. Suggestions?


PS
Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'. It seems to 
serve no beneficial purpose & consensus/convention is that OSM doesn't 
abbreviate. It is never too late to change poor tagging.


DaveF

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