Proposal talk:Reuse

Too generic

the proposed amenity=reuse is too generic IMHO; reuse can have all kind of forms and shapes and I'd prefer to tag actual occurring instances by their typology, not on a generic basis. If we did other stuff like this (e.g. "selling"), we'd have only one tag (amenity=selling) and all shops and vending machines and other places would be objects of that kind. We don't do it like this, we do distinguish between a shop and a vending machine and between a shop selling clothes and a place selling drinks (cafe, pub, ...). There is really no advantage in using tags that are so generic that you can't make much use of them without subtags that describe what actually goes on. As a concrete example I'd prefer amenity=reuse_shelf or shop=reuse or other tags according to what you want to tag. Or, in other words, I don't think there is an advantage that for recycling a huge plant (centre) and a simple container share the same main tag, so I wouldn't copy this idea for new stuff. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag Pollution

I think this may be one of the relatively rare cases where semicolon is a good solution. Rather than "reuse:books=yes", "reuse:baby_clothes=yes", have "reuse:what=books; baby clothes; magazines", etc. Brycenesbitt (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag amenity=givebox and other research links

There seems to be another tag that is used for this kind of thing which is amenity=givebox.

Compare amenity=reuse (67) and amenity=givebox (17) => https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/compare/amenity=reuse/amenity=givebox

`amenity=reuse`	`amenity=givebox`

Another good idea is to re-use the wording used in wikipedia.org, which is **Free_box** => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_box

Proposal talk:Reuse

Too generic

Tag Pollution

Tag amenity=givebox and other research links

Navigation menu

Search