Proposal talk:Recycling type

Reusing amenity=recycling

Resolved: Flaimo 13:04, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Why not reuse amenity=recycling and add something like recycling=center, recycling=container, etc.? This has one big advantage: Currently, lots of recycling centers are tagged using amenity=recycling. With this proposal, all of them would be incorrect, as the meaning of amenity=recycling would change to be containers and similar only. Using amenity=recycling, recycling=*, they would still be correct, but unspecified, so everyone would know that there's something missing, while programs or maps that have no use for distinguish between those don't have to change their rules. --Errt 13:28, 17 April 2011 (BST)

• I would also prefer to extend the existing amenity=recycling with a new tag recycling=*

At the moment, you can find about 12 recycling=yes in OSM, and some wrong tags like recycling=glas which should be corrected to recycling:glas=yes. One other thing are small waste_baskets (not containers) which are also separated for recycling, how to tag these? (amenity=waste_basket + recycling=yes or amenity=recycling + recycling=waste_basket). I would prever the first one, because they look more like a waste_basket just with separated boxes. --Walterschloegl 11:14, 17 April 2011 (BST)

Doesn't have to be a recycling=* tag, any other name would do, too. I just wanted to express that I think a subtag for amenity=recycling would make more sense. Oh, and sorry for not signing my first statement, I sometimes forget that, as I rarely work with wikis. --Errt 13:28, 17 April 2011 (BST)

using an additional tag would be fine with me too, but i don't want to touch the recycling key itself, since a) it is already used as a namespace and b) in case someone wants to do a full featured proposal for a complete rewrite of the recycling tagging scheme, recycling=* would already be taken. basically the same problem i ran into when writing the new parking proposal, where parking=* was already taken. i could imagine using something like recycling_type=reprocessing_plant/centre/container --Flaimo 14:37, 17 April 2011 (BST)

It's also possible create a new tag for recycling containers (amenity=recycling_container for example) in addition with amenity=recycling_centre and deprecate amenity=recycling. All the objects with amenity=recycling will be verified and one of the two new tags applied. --Dri60 14:46, 17 April 2011 (BST)

and are you going to do that for all 120000 objects :-) seriously, i don't think that this is a workable solution. existing objects with amenity=recycling and without a secondary type tag should be treated as containers, since that is also the example given on the wiki page for recycling. --Flaimo 15:53, 17 April 2011 (BST)

The idea of separating centre and container is good, but:

a) There is no problem with using the namespace name as key

b) Is not an argument at all

Tag chaining is widely accepted so amenity=recycling + recycling=centre is the best solution!

The second best solution is to use the namespace with recycling:type=centre, but this recycling_type does not make sense.

--phobie m d 02:06, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I see no conflict with recycling=centre, but I would also approve recycling_type=centre. --Walterschloegl 17:38, 17 April 2011 (BST)

i have incorporated the suggestions into the proposal --Flaimo 20:21, 17 April 2011 (BST)

• I like the differentiation between the container and centre, but I'm not happy with the plant. Can we find a better tagging for plants, so that it will not be mixed up with the centre. Since I'm not looking for plants, amenity does not really fit. What about something like man_made=waste_processing_plant (or waste_incineration_plant) like man_made=wastewater_plant? This has two advantages: It cannot be mixed up with the centre, and it is already used. --Walterschloegl 21:52, 17 April 2011 (BST)
  • i thought it might fit in, to cover the whole recycling chain, but i guess i could also leave it out. your suggestion should be covered in a separate proposal --Flaimo 23:30, 17 April 2011 (BST)
    • delete "processing_plant" from the proposal --Flaimo 19:39, 18 April 2011 (BST)

+1 - Reuse. Map as area, with the buildings, service roads and give the center name. If it doesn't render right get the rendering fixed. No need to create a second tag. Maybe create a tag for the facilities that the centre offers above unmanned recycling points--Pobice 01:10, 18 April 2011 (BST)

How does this differ from existing tag?

Resolved: Flaimo 13:04, 27 April 2011 (BST)

We already have amenity=waste_transfer_station. What does this add? TomChance 16:27, 18 April 2011 (BST)

i didn't know about this tag/wiki! but i guess most people don't since a) the name of the value is not something people search for (in contrast to "recycling center") b) it's not linked or mentioned on any of the wiki pages for recycling.

Just search for "waste", and you'll find it. If you think that a link to amenity=waste_transfer_station is missing somewhere (eg. in Map Features), feel free to add it. --Fkv 12:29, 10 May 2011 (BST)

that is exactly the problem: nobody searches for the term "waste" when he wants to find out on how to tag a facility for recycling, otherwise i would have found it during pre proposal research. "recycling" is the important search term, that should deliver results. --Flaimo 17:25, 10 May 2011 (BST)

other reasons that speak against it are: 1) it's only been used 70 times so far. normally wiki paged don't get created for tags used this rarely. 120000 POIs tagged with amenity=recycling probably contain far more centers that that. b) it is not backward compatible (see discussion above). so i probably still would go on with this proposal and rather change the 70 occurrences of amenity=waste_transfer_station later on. --Flaimo 19:48, 18 April 2011 (BST)

I did make use of amenity=waste_transfer_station a couple of times, eg, for the "Mistplätze" in Vienna. amenity=recycling wouldn't cover all waste transfer stations, as they are not limited to, and need not even support recycling. Most waste goes to incineration or landfill, not to recycling. If there are few occurances of amenity=waste_transfer_station, this either means that most of them are not yet mapped, or that it is poorly supported by editors, or that documentation is missing. In any of these cases, inventing a new tag with the same meaning will not help... --Fkv 12:29, 10 May 2011 (BST)

according to wikipedia "Transfer stations are often used as places where local waste collection vehicles will deposit their waste cargo prior to loading into larger vehicles" a waste transfer station is not the same like a Civic amenity site or household waste recycling centre. So it would be worth to clearly differentiate those. --Walterschloegl 16:17, 19 April 2011 (BST)

@Flaimo: In the voting section you wrote: "it is not the same thing". I agree. It is not the same thing in that a waste_transfer_station may or may not contain recycling facilities. But will there be any application for recycling_type=centre that can not be covered with amenity=waste_transfer_station? --Fkv 12:29, 10 May 2011 (BST)

the whole purpose of this proposal is to introduce a definition for recycling centers where people can go to. if i put it into "waste_transfer_station", i would again need another tag to differentiate between facilities for waste collection vehicles and those which are meant for "end users" and we would go in circles. since waste_transfer_station never went through a proposal stage and someone just created a wiki page based on 77 occurrences, i definitely won't consider putting it there. --Flaimo 13:34, 10 May 2011 (BST)

It seems that you are intending amenity=recycling for end-users, and amenity=waste_transfer_station for non-endusers. But consider that end users do also make waste that cannot be recycled. See Wiener Mistplätze - here people can bring in anything from furniture to batteries. Thus, amenity=recycling would only be half of the truth. We will still need the amenity=waste_transfer_station tag.

If you want to define whether a facility is open for end users, why not use the access=* key? yes...for all, no...for no end users, private...for residents only --Fkv 17:41, 10 May 2011 (BST)

well, then i guess you need a subtag for waste_transfer_stations too, but that is not part of this proposal. as for the access key to define private/public access: the current access scheme was created with vehicles in mind and doesn't offer a good way for tagging (multiple) roles. but you can help changing that by later voting for my other proposal suggesting a refactored access scheme :-) --Flaimo 18:42, 10 May 2011 (BST)

vague definitions

Resolved: --Flaimo 23:03, 29 May 2011 (BST)

What are the verifiable differences between a recycling centre and a recycling container? How do you tell whether a place is one or the other? OK, a centre is bigger than a container, how much bigger? --Vclaw 21:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

as the value for centre states: "Often they are operated by one or more persons." --Flaimo 08:45, 3 May 2011 (BST)

extended the descriptions a bit and added pictures. should be clear now. --Flaimo 09:00, 3 May 2011 (BST)

So its just whether they are staffed or not? Why not just tag staffed=ye/no or similar? --Vclaw 03:05, 5 May 2011 (BST)

It's a fair question, because I suppose if a recycling centre is quite small then it starts to look like just a collection of recycling containers. But maybe that's the answer. We draw an area and tag it as a recycling centre, and then (if we're feeling like some super-detailed mapping) we can add separate recycling containers within the recycling centre. Anyone mapped a centre that way? -- Harry Wood 14:40, 8 May 2011 (BST)

you can tag it, if you like, but i wouldn't make it mandatory. i know a centre, which is open 5 days a week, but only on 3 there is personnel around. i think the two pictures in the proposal give a clear enough definition, what is what. i also wouldn't see a problem with containers mapped inside a centre. renderers should be modified anyway to display containers at much higher zoom levels than right now. --Flaimo 13:44, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Avoid "type"?

My thought about this proposal is, maybe we should avoid using the word "type". I believe this is a convention with the naming of OSM tags in general, since "type" is a hugely generic word. The normal solution instead is to go for a "tag chaining" approach. a=b & b=c so in this case: amenity=recycling, recycling=container. Just a thought really. I guess there's a problem either way, with people using values like 'bottles' and 'cans' with these keys (not following the approach documented at Tag:amenity=recycling) -- Harry Wood 14:40, 8 May 2011 (BST)

the reason for this is stated in the very first topic of this talk page. --Flaimo 17:02, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Native speakers might do better, but maybe facility=* or recycling_facility=*? How often would the former be needed for describing something else on the same object, I'd say never? Or even: for a container amenity=recycling + man_made=container. Since a recycling center is never just one container, it would have something else as supplementary tags, or nothing at all. Alv 17:54, 8 May 2011 (BST)