Personally, I would map a small number of recycling containers as a single node, tagged with all the types accepted. From my experience, these containers often get moved around, at least here in Edinburgh, so their relative positions change depending on which was overflowing last or something. I am also not sure that it adds significant value knowing how many containers there are, so a single not should suffice.
Cheers, Donald On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 13:36, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > I must admit to being surprised that we dont have a distinct value: > recycling points are much commoner throughout Europe than they are in the > UK (probably because more people live in flats). Windsor & Maidenhead > withdrew at least some of their points when recycling bins were introduced. > In Nottingham single containers are relatively common (usually things like > the red BHF ones, rather than council ones), and single containers with > multiple ports exist on the University site, as do combined rubbish bins, > recycling bins. > > In Spain and Switzerland something like a recycling point with multiple > containers will be located within a short distance of most properties (e.g. > this one > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7896935059#map=19/46.79881/10.30768> > I added which has at least 4 distinct containers). At least in the past in > some Swiss communes, these were also co-located with a communal location > for household rubbish (the one above doesn't appear to have that facility > now). I presume Poland is similar, but Mateusz can confirm. > > It does appear that an additional tag value would be appropriate. > > Jerry > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 09:42, Jez Nicholson <jez.nichol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Agreed, "point" sucks as a value, I won't use it....my fundamental reason >> for it not being a 'centre' was size, but a Recycling Point _could_ be seen >> as a mini Recycling Centre that only accepts recyclable waste. You can see >> a perimeter boundary by the concrete area it is set on. I could go with a >> site relation but you can't physically carry out other activities between >> the constituent objects (unlike a wind farm). >> >> I will try with 'centre' and including '....Recycling Point' in the name. >> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, 08:58 Dan S, <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 19:21 schreef Jez Nicholson < >>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Okay, bear with. I know that this is detailed mapping, but I enquired a >>>> while ago on the amenity:recycling talk page and a single recycling >>>> container == a single node. A group of containers == a group of nodes. >>>> >>>> Here is an image of the highly attractive Golf Drive Recycling Point >>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golf_Drive_Recycling_Point.jpg >>>> featuring 6 * "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="container" which >>>> accept different items including >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379145 glass, >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379151 cans, cardboard, paper, >>>> plastic bottles, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8168379142 a >>>> clothes bank. >>>> >>>> The area they are contained in is called "Golf Drive Recycling Point". >>>> There's a sign that says so. I've added a polygon >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/877940580 as "amenity"="recycling" + >>>> "recycling_type"="point" >>>> >>>> I can only really see containers or centres in >>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/recycling_type#values but >>>> this place is neither. >>>> >>>> Are you offended by "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling_type"="point"? >>>> It seems like the UK term for it. >>>> >>>> >>> Honestly, "point" seems dangerously prone to misunderstanding, when used >>> as a value here in OSM. I know we tend to say "recycling point", but that >>> doesn't mean that we say "point". "I'll just go to the point". >>> >>> I wish I could suggest a good alternative word, e.g. a word we already >>> use for some other type of feature. >>> >>> What is the fundamental reason this is not a recycling_type=centre? Is >>> it the size? (If so, no problem - use "centre" on a suitable polygon.) Is >>> it the fact that it's unstaffed? (Could use self_service=only or >>> supervised=no.) Is it that there's no perimeter boundary? >>> >>> Best >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jeremy Harris <j...@wizmail.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26/11/2020 11:16, Jez Nicholson wrote: >>>>> > Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point >>>>> in OSM? >>>>> > Have you seen/used anything else? >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jeremy >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
