Proposal talk:Waste collection

Concept not clear/logical with the currently suggested values

I think you should decide whether this tag will work like waste_collection=type of collected waste or like waste_collection=type of waste collectors (object). Currently you are mixing up those two (e.g. "cigarettes" is a kind of waste, "household_bin" is a kind of object to collect waste).--Dieterdreist (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Added 'bin' or 'receptacle' to all the suggested values. Note the word .. suggested! Warin61 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Generic term looses scale / size information

The suggested key waste_collection=* doesn't give any information on the amount you can dispose at these places. Are these to be used on big plants/centres as well as on small bins? Then I'd expect to have another subtag to denote the size / amount of material you can dispose. E.g. for building material or earth you'd expect to be able to bring lorry loads of material, while for drugs or batteries the most common features are only accepting household quantities. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The word 'bin' does not give a size/volume. Added to 'Container' section the suggestion of a sub tag volume=240 litres as a possible example. Warin61 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Recycling

In the "Recycling" section you wrote: "I've included this as part of the waste_collection system." So this means that the waste_collection=* key is intended to replace the recycling:*=yes/no keys documented at amenity=recycling. I suggest that you include the respective keys as a column in your waste_collection=* tag list, because the conversion far from trivial. E.g. recycling:clothes=yes becomes waste_collection=clothing (not clothes), and recycling:computers=* apparently becomes waste_collection=electrical. --Fkv (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Added note for recycling as a suggested sub key recycling=yes. In this way if a collection point has unknown recycling then it can be easily tagged and leave the recycling decision for later and an easy addition. Warin61 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling_type integrated in the proposal? We have recycling containers on every corner in austria, but only a handfull of bigger recycling centers. (Flaimo) 13:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

half-baked proposal

• You combine the type of trash with the type of facility at which the trash is collected (e.g. electrical_bin, drugs_bin). This is no good. Instead you should map these independently so the mapper can define that there are containers or a recycling center where you can recycle a, b and c. It seems you haven't had a look at Recycling materials so far.
• The next problem is that you suggest only one tag and thus would create semicolon-monsters when people map a place where they can recycle waste_collection=glass_bin;clothing;battery_bin (didn't find the latter mentioned at all). The recent amenity=recycling is more reasonable in this regard.
• The date of voting start (5th march) is imho quite ambitious regarding the state the proposal is in. -- malenki 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

very poorly constructed proposal

This proposal has significant overlap with the existing recycling scheme, and is less flexible. For example I can tag a single node "recycling:shoes=yes , recycling:gas_canisters=yes". But with this scheme I would need to make two separate nodes waste_collection nodes. This proposal mixes the type of facility with the type of items collected, which is poor mapping. Good mapping would define the type of facility (e.g. center, series of bins), and the materials accepted. As of this reading, the proposal documents are messy and do not compellingly make the argument as to why existing tagging needs to be replaced. Overall this proposal is not ready for voting: I suggest that the proponents map a few dozen facilities using the existing tagging, then return with an entirely new approach. Gain some experience, then write a new proposal. Brycenesbitt (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)