Proposal talk:Reusable packaging

Support proposal

Very keen to see this adopted by the community! Thinking about creating a sustainability-focused renderer, and that kind of information would be very useful to have in the database. Thanks for writing the proposal. Chtfn (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Discount for using own container?

In the UK, it's fairly common for cafes to offer a discount of around 10% to people who use their own container for takeaway drinks. Is this something that could be mapped? Ecatmur (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

How about reusable_packaging:discount=yes at least or reusable_packaging:discount=10 %? CamelCaseNick (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The discount could also be in the form a a fixed amount, so we should allow for values like '0.10 EUR' as well. There are also some vending machines that offer 'up to 30% more content' when using your own cup. On the othet hand, I'm not fully convinced that we need to have that much detail. a simple reusable_packaging:discount=yes/no should be sufficient in most cases.

Mueschel (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it could be really difficult to fill and maintain discounts on products as in most of the time it's really temporary. Also I'm not sure that the goal of OpenStreetMap is to store commercial information such as discounts even if it could be a way to encourage people to reduce their waste rendering this data on a map. AJojo44 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Only for some product

In some shop you can only use reuspackage for cheese but not for meat. How we can indicate this? Yod4z (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's quite obvious that not all products sold can be put to own containers. We could allow for more detailed values instead of yes/no, e.g. * = cheese;milk Mueschel (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could simply do the difference using `only` if all products are concerned, and `yes` if only some of the products are concerned. This provides less information than precising the product that are concerned by the possibility to use our own containers but it's much more simpler to fill and maintain. AJojo44 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal still active?

I'm fully supporting this proposal. I started an RFC for a similar proposal: Own dishes at takeaway restaurant. It would be better to have a more general tag though. Do you plan to continue this proposal? If you don't, would it be okay for me to take it over? Thanks for your response! --Flo Edelmann (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For the moment I continue to use the `bulk_purchase` tag that is more used but I would like to continue this proposal on reusable packaging as it's more clear and avoids the confusion with the fact to buy in large quantity. I think you can use the `bulk_purchase` tag for your purpose with the restaurants. This reusable proposal could be an improvement but it's still new and needs to be discussed and improved. --Antoine J. (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think bulk_purchase=* is suitable for tagging takeaway restaurants accepting/offering reusable containers. The tags proposed here are a perfect fit, though. If you are still looking for more comments, have you already submitted a link to this proposal to WeeklyOSM and the Tagging mailing list? When I did this, quite a few new discussions developed. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the freedom to add some information from my own proposal to this one, because I canceled my own proposal in favor of this one: First, a note about the takeaway:lunchbox=* key that should be replaced by this proposal. Second, a list of all wiki pages that should be updated once the proposal is completed. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ajojo44 Is there anything I could do to advance this proposal? Would it okay for you if I managed the transition to the voting process? I really think this proposal is worth pursuing and also that it's ready for voting. Thanks in advance for your answer! --Flo Edelmann (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A more general format

1. Could this be packaging:reusable:*=*, so that there can be eg packaging:disposable:offer=no or packaging:recyclable:offer=yes in the future?
2. I wonder whether this should be "packaging", or instead "container"? Most of the content is about containers. Packaging makes me think of bags that can carry food & drink containers inside, and the option that purchased items can be wrapped in paper for gifting.

-- Kovposch (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I first thought 1) would be a good idea but I think it's not that necessary. I think it's hard to verify recycleability for packaging and disposable is like the counter part to reusable. SO if you have reusable=yes than you can expect that disposable=yes too. reusable=only ...disposable=no / reusable=no...disposable=only

For 2). it seems the reason packaging was chosen is because the original proposal was meant to be used for places with bulk purchases. To be able to use it for both (takeways and bulk purchases) I think packaging would be the more general term. --Hedaja (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support for branded network

Thanks for this nice proposal Ajojo44 and Flo Edelmann! In Switzerland, there is right now a brand which have huge coverage on the country with its own system of reusable packaging: recircle. There are also probably concurrent or there will be. How to tag such info? Something like that: reusable_packaging:network=recircle which could contains multiple brands? Recircle has two types of partners: those where you can fill their receptacles and those where you can get a recircle receptacle or exchange one. Any idea of how we should tag that? Imagoiq (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I know these networks that are quite popular the Munich area: REBOWL and RECUP. I think all restaurants/takeaways that participate in those networks have to support both filling and exchange. Maybe tagging reusable_packaging:recircle=fill_only / reusable_packaging:recircle=yes / reusable_packaging:rebowl=yes / reusable_packaging:recup=yes could then cover all those cases? I agree that it's an important information to know as a customer, but I'd move this to a separate proposal. Let's first get this proposal through the process, but keep this in the back of our heads! --Flo Edelmann (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Imagoiq: and @Flo2154:; Yes, that was missing like now :/ But I would prefer the key: reusable_packaging:network=*. It is easier for Dataconsumers and to add something. It is something, that can be added to the wiki with finished proposal - or? --SafetyIng (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't add either version (reusable_packaging:network=rebowl or reusable_packaging:rebowl=yes) to the wiki page of the main reusable_packaging=* tags (once this proposal is accepted), because that is not part of this proposal. Also, I think that it needs further discussion and that should happen in a new proposal. I'll be sure to support that new proposal then, though :) --Flo Edelmann (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Include all packaging policies?

Originally posted by @Bert Araali: in the Voting process:

Sorry I wasn't active in the discussion to bring this up. I would prefer to even extend this scheme with an extra tag or values to describe the policy in some countries, like Rwanda & Uganda, where plastic bags are forbidden. In Rwanda very strict adhered to, UG less. Something like reusable_packaging:offer=yes - plastic bag forbidden or reusable_packaging:offer=sustainable or reusable_packaging:offer=eco-friendly or reusable_packaging:offer=biodegradable. In essence, if the customer is willing and creative, most packaging is reusable but not necessarily eco-friendly or biodegradable. Would be nice if we can include all packaging policies in 1 or a limited number of tags. Missed opportunity or can we change it later?--Bert Araali (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that this information needs to be packed into this tag. However, it would be possible to extend the allowed values like you suggested, so it should be no problem to start another proposal that does that once this one is accepted. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks ! Bert Araali (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Namespace and no tag

Originally posted by @Adamant1: in the Voting process:

1. I'm not a fan of needlessly ballooning the database with arbitrary no tags. Especially when it comes to\ namespaces and these inventorying type tags. Either something applies to somewhere or it doesn't. If it doesn't, just don't map it. Otherwise, someone has to browse through hundreds no tags to figure out if somewhere actually provides something or not. 2. There's zero reason this needs to be a namespace. It would be just as good as something like reusable_packing=yes/no/offers. Having it as a namespace just adds extra, completely unnecessary words and therefore complication to a tagging scheme that really doesn't need it. For instance, the "only" in reusable_packaging:accept=only implies that they accept reusable packing. So the word "accept" in the namespace is completely un-needed. Name goes for reusable_packaging:accept=yes. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

1. There is a difference in "not surveyed"/"not checked" and "reusable packaging is definitely not accepted/offered here" though. This kind of tagging would also allow apps like StreetComplete to turn this into a quest: "… any answer given by the user must result in something being tagged. For example, a quest that asks for the website of a place must be able to tag the element somehow if the user answers that the place has no website - otherwise, the next user will be asked the same question." (StreetComplete Quest Guidelines). 2. I agree it's not really necessary right now. But there is already the idea of tagging networks of reusable containers (see some voting comments and the discussion above). Regardless of how that tag might look like then (reusable_packaging:network=* or reusable_packaging_network=*), any tag containing the words "reusable packaging" will be long. With the current proposal, at least everything is structured in the namespace. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Nothing I said negates the possibility for it to be a StreetComplete quest later. Nor does not needlessly mapping instances of no make a StreetComplete quest not possible. Just like addresses can still be added through StreetComplete even though there is inherently not a "no" option with the address tag. Tags shouldn't be created purely for their merit as a possible StreetComplete quest anyway. So I'm really not sure what your point is or who it's relevant.

2. I'd say the same thing for this. People can tag networks of containers no matter what the specific wording of this tag is. Doing so doesn't magically become impossible if the tag isn't a namespace. Actually, it would be way more institutive to go with reusable_packaging=whatever + reusable_packaging:network then it would to go with this current scheme + reusable_packaging:network. It fits with existing schemes better anyway. Have a main tag, then a namespace to clarify it if need be. Just like we have network and network:type or the various brand:wikipedia/wikidata/language tags. There's zero wrong with that and there's no reason not to do it here.

I was totally clear anyway that my issue is that the words "offer" and "accept" are redundant and just used to create a namespace for it's own sake. In no way does that mean I'm against all uses of namespaces. Just that this particular tag being a namespace is pointless, redundant, and needlessly overcomplicates things. Not to mention reusable_packaging:offer / reusable_packaging:accept doesn't make semantic sense either. Especially when you could just as easily go with reusable_packaging=offered / reusable_packaging=accepted. Both of which actually do. Seriously, do you think recycling:paper:accept=yes makes sense or would be better then just recycling:paper=yes?

Also, while I'm aware that any tag containing the words "reusable packaging" will be long, so what? I don't really find "this will be two words either way. So lets just make it four instead" at all compelling. "Recycling:paper=yes is long. So why not just go with recycling:paper:accept=yes?" Uuuhhh, sure. That totally sounds like a solid, reasonable argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If some place is tagged as reusable_packaging=accepted, I can't distinguish whether that place does really not offer any reusable packaging, or if it was just not checked yet. Two separate keys for "offer" and "accept" solve that problem. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That's why the person who originally does the tagging can use a semi-colon value separator to add that they offer reusable packing. If they don't though, your still in the same exact place then if they didn't add the information with a namespace. In otherward, you can add the information either way and it can also be left out either way. So what's the difference except that the tag unnecessarily uses namespaces when it doesn't need to? There isn't some magical attribute to namespaces that makes information someone isn't going to add otherwise suddenly appear out of thin air. Nor do they magically make you able to add information you couldn't add without using a namespace. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

reusable_packaging:accept=yes without reusable_packaging:offer=* would be equivalent to reusable_packaging=accept. But so would reusable_packaging:accept=yes with reusable_packaging:offer=no. So there would be some information loss here. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, is there anywhere that provides reusable packing that doesn't accept it themselves? If not, that's another instance where this whole tagging scheme is redundant since reusable_packaging:offer=yes/only implies resuable_packing:accept=yes, but the proposal and tags presuppose otherwise and that both should be used anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. vending=milk: A vending machine that offers milk in glass bottles, but does not allow filling customer bottles. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

How is it reusable then? Sure, you can literally fill any kind of container meant for a liquid with a liquid from somewhere else, but that's not really the point in these tags is it?

Otherwise, you could say that the convenience store down the road from me sells "reusable" water bottles because I can fill it up in my water tap at home, Etc. Etc. I can take a plastic shopping bag from my local Rite-Aid that get from making a purchase, which California makes everyone pay 10 cents for now, and reuse at the grocery store down the road from there. That doesn't mean Rite-Aid sells "re-usable" shopping bags though. Nor does the gas station across the street that does same thing. I just to a restaurant, got a to-go bag for my order, went to the gas station across the street and got a soda, then put the soda in the bag I got from the restaurant. That doesn't mean either place provides or allows for "reusable" containers.

No one with any kind of sense is going to advocate using these tags on every store in California just because the state makes stores charge 10 cents for a bag and people can likely re-use them somewhere else. So, really, where's the limit? Because it seems like there isn't one. This is exactly the kind of arbitrary, bloat tagging that I'm talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had deposit glass bottles in mind that can be returned e.g. in the farm shop or a supermarket and you get the money back. Of course it doesn't make sense to add the tag to every place that sells beverages in glass bottles. I think it can't be defined strictly what should or shouldn't count as reusable. So some common sense is always involved. That's also why plastic and paper bags are explicitly excluded (right from the first version of the proposal): To give some hint how strong the container should be to count as reusable. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. While I agree that what's reusable can't be strictly defined and obviously common sense should be used, tags should be defined strictly and their usage should not be left up to common sense. Especially because things have so much variation per country, state, context, Etc. Etc. It's all well and good to say it doesn't make sense to not add the tag to every place that sells glass bottles, but there's a good chance that will happen if you aren't extremely clear in the proposal and in the article for the tags that it doesn't.

A good example of this dynamic and the wider inherent problems with this tagging is my example of the government mandated reusable plastic bags in California. Every plastic bag given out at stores is strong enough to be reused and they are reused all the time. So, there's three options here.

1. The sentence about plastic bags not counting from the article/Which would lead to every store in California (and the other states that have the same mandate) being tagged with these tags. That would them virtually useless though and we both agree that's a not a good option.

2. The sentence can stay in the article. Which would lead either people not using the tag in California and other places even though they have recyclable plastics bags. Leaving it would also likely lead to extremely inconsistent tagging in those places(plus others) and the subsequent edit warring Etc. Etc. that is bound to result from it.

3. You can admit that this is a half baked tagging scheme that wasn't fully thought through. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)