Proposed features/recycling type
|The Feature Page for the approved proposal Recycling type is located at Key:recycling_type.|
|Definition:||A new tag to differentiate between big recycling centers and just simple recycling containers|
|Rendered as:||Like current amenity=recycing, but with a green/blue icon|
Why this proposal?
Currently fellow mappers use amenity=recycling to map anything from small paper/plastic containers up to big recycling centres. This vague definition is a problem for renderers as for routing programs, since they can't differentiate between those two, even though centres are more important than the small containers (which are used basically everywhere in countries that have a distinct recycling program).
Currently mapnik renders recycling symbols up to level 16. this would be OK for centres, but recycling containers should only be rendered at level 18 or higher. See Trac ticket 3575 By using a separate key for defining the recycling type this could easily be achieved. Also, in contrast to containers, recycling centres are more important, which would make sense for routing programs to add to their POI finder functions.
containeramenity=recycling if recycling_type=* is not explicitly mapped.
Suggestions for renderers
The symbol should be the same as the current one for amenity=recycling (brown), except it should be green for centres. In case of an additional access=private or access=permissive tag, the icon should be transparent (like the blue Ps for parking spaces). The rendering for amenity=recycling without an additional tag recycling_type=* or with recycling_type=container should be changed so they only show up at the highest zoom level, while recycling_type=centre should be displayed two zoom levels earlier (basically the same level amenity=recycling is shown right now).
Suggestions for routing programs
While amenity=recycling without recycling_type=* or recycling_type=container shouldn't be added to a general POI list, it would make sense to add recycling_type=centre, since these facilities are of more interest to the public and harder to find.
Suggestions for editors
Presets or GUI dialogs could easily be enhanced by an additional dropdown for selecting the recycling type.
Changes based on comments from the RFC phase
- switched from a dedicated amenity value to a new tag recycling_type=* (Walterschloegl, Errt)
- removed processing_plant as a value (Walterschloegl)
Voting is now closed. 17 users voted "yes", 1 user voted "no". Proposal has reached the minimum amount of 15 votes and 8 approving votes. The proposal is approved with a majority of 94%.
- I approve this proposal. --Flaimo 19:35, 1 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Dri60 20:40, 1 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Ueliw0 22:10, 1 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Polyglot 22:21, 1 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Xapitoun 23:56, 1 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Fabi2 02:12, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --MetiorErgoSum 09:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Al3xius 11:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Burnus 12:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist 14:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. sletuffe 15:28, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Pobice 23:42, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Seoman 16:51, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Walterschloegl 18:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Cobra 18:45, 8 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Hholzgra 19:09, 8 May 2011 (BST)
- I oppose this proposal. This is completely redundant to whether it is in an amenity=waste_transfer_station. --Fkv 21:11, 9 May 2011 (BST)
- this has been discussed in the comments. 1) it is not the same thing. 2) the naming is horrible. no non-native speaker would search for this string when searching for recycling centres. 3) according to tagwatch it has been used only 77 times so far. if you estimate that only about 0.5% of all elements tagged with amenity=recycling so far are centres, that would still be over three times as many as waste_transfer_stations. --Flaimo 09:20, 10 May 2011 (BST)
- I am going to answer this on the discussion page. --Fkv 11:56, 10 May 2011 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Don-vip 02:39, 14 May 2011 (BST)