Talk:Tag:landuse=landfill
Capped Landfills
Once a landfill is full, it is covered in dirt and more or less preserved. How should this clearly visible area be tagged? Is it disused:landuse=landfill or is a landfill always in use, until it has some other notable use? Or does it stop being a landfill once it has grass growing on it? --Mtc (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think once it is not in use any more (i.e. once there are no more waste brought to this place), it should be tagged with disused:landuse=landfill or more often with abandoned:landuse=landfill (disused: should be used when it is possible to use the site again; compare Key:abandoned: and Key:disused:). abandoned:landuse=landfill can be used in combination with other tags such as natural=scrub, natural=wood, natural=grassland or even landuse=forest. Autharite (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend use of abandoned:landuse=landfill with the landfill has been covered with soil and there is now semi-natural vegetation such as grass or trees growing above it, so that it is no longer clearly a landfill unless you know the history of the area. If the landfill is no longer operational but still is obviously covered in trash or other landfil material, it woudl be appropriate to still use landuse=landfill (since the ground is still covered by landfill material) but add the tag disused=yes to show that it is not operational. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a lifecycle tag that is something like “retired”, because it feels so wired to tag something that is officially retired with “abandoned”. —-Lectrician1 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I recommend use of abandoned:landuse=landfill with the landfill has been covered with soil and there is now semi-natural vegetation such as grass or trees growing above it, so that it is no longer clearly a landfill unless you know the history of the area. If the landfill is no longer operational but still is obviously covered in trash or other landfil material, it woudl be appropriate to still use landuse=landfill (since the ground is still covered by landfill material) but add the tag disused=yes to show that it is not operational. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Given this discussion, how should features like Mount Trashmore Park on Wikipedia be tagged? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- abandoned:landuse=landfill is quite weird, as it is a landfill that is used (to store trash), just not expanded anymore. On the other hand some actually have full blown parks on them... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently we need to distinguish if
- the landfill contains inactive material such as rubble and building debris, and the new surface is fully usable. We have lots of such debris hills from world war 2 in Berlin, which now appear as natural peaks and have parks on them,
- the landfill contains material that is still rotting, producing gas (which might be harvested) and needs sealing against leaking, such to prevent polluting underground water. Thus the landfill as such is maintained and monitored, even if not being filled anymore. This type would be quite recognisable as landfill, often fenced off as well. --Polarbear w (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
And if the landfill is simply a
- vast area of exposed trash, with no pretense of "filling" any "land". A good old fashioned garbage dump. And no, it is not "abandoned" because it is still growing. And nobody said it was intended to be some fancy landfill.
Jidanni (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Burial?
"A site for the disposal of waste materials by burial." - what about places where trash heap is not buried? Say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#/media/File:Landfill.jpg or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#/media/File:DSC8792-01.jpg I propose to remove this "burial" requirement. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Support --Lectrician1 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine-grained classification
| Description | Photo | Tagging | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| garbage dump | File:Gorodskayasvalka.jpg | material=waste | LA |
| mining waste (generic) | 
|
material=tailings man_made=spoil_heap |
|
| coal heap/pile | 
|
material=coal | Porbandar |
| gypstack | 
|
material=gypsum (landfill=gypstack also possible) | |
| red mud dump | 
|
landfill:waste=red_mud man_made=tailings_pond |
Stade |
| potash mining dump | 
|
material=? man_made=heap |
Giesen |
| slag heap | 
|
material=slag |
- Is the coal heap really a disposal? It is rather storage. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Lectrician1 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Recycling center
I have been seeing the outlines of recycling centers/compost plants tagged as landfill (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32029171), but that seems inappropriate, since nothing is "dumped" there, it is rather processed. What would be more appropriate for that?
- Maybe amenity=recycling with recycling_type=centre or landuse=industrial. Something B (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)