From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial discussion

  • My rationale is to add a new item if I find a recycling point that has a specific facility for it. For example, you'll often be able to recycle glass bottles but it's rare to find a place where you can recycle sheets of glass, so it's worth having that information properly defined. TomChance 18:10, 19 September 2006 (BST)
    • I think that depends on how big the recycling centre is. I'm pretty sure the Redbridge recycling centre in Oxford takes sheets of glass! It's a fair bet though that if it isn't on the recyclenow list, recycling centres won't take it. Gagravarr 20:37, 19 September 2006 (BST)
      • Well precisely, my point is that we need enough granularity to accurately describe each recycling centre. It wouldn't be much use if you thought "recycling:glass=yes" implied the centre takes glass sheets, if it actually just did bottles :) Knowing where to take recyclable stuff in your local area is a very handy feature we can offer over and above that which many local councils, businesses, universities etc. offer. We can then use the recyclenow list as a guide, and people can amend the list of recycle:keys when they find new/different facilities.

I agree that having a recycling centre marked on the maps is good, but disagree that this level of information is appropriate in OSM. -- Dom 11:59, 24 September 2006 (BST)

  • Can you explain why? I'm already finding it useful for some maps I've wanted to produce for a while now. TomChance 12:58, 24 September 2006 (BST)

So, what exactly does this node mean? Only recycling centres or also containers? In Germany there are many containers, perhaps more than post boxes. I don't think it is a good idea to draw each of those on the map. At least not with such a big symbol. Beebop 11:16 03 August 2007

I agree with Beebop, I propose a tag between a container and recycling stations, that would be seen on zoom levels 18-19.
We have those sheltered smaal recycling houses a a standard all over north Europe (image: Somebody could take this idea and give it a name and develop it forward, i dont know how the bureaucratics works here. Petsamo 14.3.2016
I've been mapping every recycling point, whether it's a couple of bins on a street or a major recycling centre. We could introduce a second tag - amenity=recycling_centre - to distinguish them. The way they're rendered on the maps at the moment is entirely appropriate IMO, but that tag could show up on lower zoom levels as well? TomChance 10:36, 3 August 2007 (BST)

I am using amenity=recycling as area for recycling parks = location where you can bring your waste (like old furniture, garden waste) --Rubke 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have area for reciclyng facilites rendered as well. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 09:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the places that I lived there always was a public place where inhabitants could take the waste they want to get rid of immediatelly or that can not be left on the street to be taken by the garbage car. This waste is not only 'recycling' waste. This should be analysed in relationship to Tag:amenity=waste disposal

There's a good list of what can be recycled at [], but I don't know quite how many of them we'll want to record


I'll vote against this, see why : [1] --Bartv 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal. MikeCollinson 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. User:David.earl 12.40, 19 December 2006 (UTC). It is already rendered in osmarender!
  • I approve this proposal. Gagravarr 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --KristianThy 13:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Batchoy 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --SlowRider 16:04, 06 January 2007
  • I approve this proposal. --Jammeh 14:57, 14 January 2007
  • I approve this proposal.--Alban 08:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. TomChance 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-vote discussion

  • From the above discussion, in the U.K. 'recycling banks' can be found on the odd treet corner where a large bin has been placed, about the height of a man. These would be good to map, just like postboxes, it can be hard to know where your nearest one is and important if you don't have a car. In Germany I remember seeing the public bins were split in 4 and I had to drop my crisp wrapper in the right hole. Very good to be that environmental but not worth mapping. Something needs to distingush the small drop of points to the much larger ones (often with tips/refuse-transfer places) that you'd probably go to in the car because you've stored up several weeks of recycling. I would propose some sort of size tag? - LastGrape 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Often the recycling bins are for different coloured glass bottles. I don't know if they generally have the same selection of colours, is it worth tagging which ones? - LastGrape 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we have areas rendered as well? Here in Italy we have many dropping point for furniture, ectronics and so on.. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, do we need a vote to extend this to areas? I've been using this fairly extensively already. --Thomas Wood 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done these as highway=service;area=yes with a node amenity=recycling in the middle. Osma renders the area, mapnik doesn't. A dedicated area makes sense, though. I was looking for one, before I decided to use what I wrote earlier. --Ldp 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe "recycling:full_service=yes", like we do with laundry? --Slashme 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Paper Based Beverage Cartons

Found a recycling bin for "Paper Based Beverage Cartons" in Ingleton. I'll mark it down using recycling:beverage_cartons unless anyone can come up with anything better --Pobice 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What about recycling:cartons=yes/no or maybe recycling:paper_packaging=yes/no --Gorn (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Garden refuse?

I'd like to have "recycling:garden_refuse" as a tag: many of the local dump sites only accept light garden refuse, not big chunks of wood. --Slashme 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I see there is "green_waste", so I'll use that. --Slashme 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage times

Is there a good way of indicating the periods of time during which the containers can be used? Here in Germany, some glass containers can only be used during week days between 7am and 7pm. opening_hours=* doesn't seem appropriate, as technically the container is accessible at any time (even though you shouldn't use it outside those hours). Tryphon 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

opening_hours=* seems fine to me, in the same way as we map maxspeed=* both in places where it is heavily enforced and where it is ignored Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I see that opening_hours=* is already documented at the page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As hours are not the same for all containers, put opening_hours when relevant seems better. e.g. opening_hours:glass=07:00-19:00 .



What if one bin takes multiple items? Tags can't be arrays, right? Brycenesbitt

Personally I think this type of information is too fragile to map... it is subject to change, and unlikely to be tightly maintained over a long period of time. Brycenesbitt

In some countries, glas and metal is collected in the same bin, while in others it's collected in separate bins. This is often a national directive, which doesn't change from year to year. (Actually, over here it hasn't changed in the last decade.) However, I do think it's too much detail to state exactly which bin excepts what. Simply indicating that a recycling point for example collects paper, plastic, glas and metal is enough in my opinion. --Pbb (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with tagging such as recycling:batteries=yes + recycling:electrical_items=yes on one object? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

recycling centres

it bugs the hell out of me, that there isn't any differentiation between recycling containers and bigger recycling centres, which results in the recycling icon being rendered to prominently in mapnik. that's why i wrote a proposal for for recycling centres, which is ready for comments now. --Flaimo 21:35, 16 April 2011 (BST)

This tagging issue seems solved now Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

recycling:compost ?

I think the tag recycling:compost does'nt exist. It's different than recycling:green_waste, is'nt it ? --Christouf 22:44, 28 June 2011 (BST)

  • Probably is different as 'compost' implies that the waste has been digested and is not necessarily limited to garden/lawn waste, including for instance peelings from food preparation. --Ceyockey 18:29, 14 August 2011 (BST)
  • ok thanks. So can i propose this tag (recycling:compost) ? --Christouf 09:22, 17 August 2011 (BST)
    • It is my impression that the tag-proposal/approval process is pretty much broken and that the default path is to start using a tag as needed and seek reconciliation among similar tags at some future time. I'm happy to be wrong about this, though. --Ceyockey 05:07, 18 August 2011 (BST)
  • I would like to suggest that we start mapping compost heaps placed on public property that are maintained by communities within urban areas. They are usually partially enclosed in wooden boxes and those living in the nearby houses usually gather their organic materials here to compost on-premise. This is different to containers that people put their organic matters in for the communal disposal company to take away regularly and compost centrally. The green waste they collect is also usually taken away for drying and incineration to generate power, not composting, so these are actually three different concepts. We'll start tagging this as recycling:compost=yes + composting=yes for now. Bkil (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the page is pretty unclear about the best tagging for a compost bin. Is it "recycling:compost" and/or "recycling:green_waste=*" and/or "recycling:organic" ?? The iD editor defaults to green_waste, but I think the definitions should be more granularly clarified so people can better tag compost bins. Osmedit (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
waste=organic Davileci (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

recycling:glass_bottles ?

Does is make sense to add a tag recycling:glass_bottles:colors=white;green;brown ? --Bibodo 02:53, 13 August 2011 (BST)

Yes, it does make sense. There are some recycling streams which require separation and others which do not. --Ceyockey 18:30, 14 August 2011 (BST)
This tag is not in the wiki and does not look very official. Can we maybe make it official/propose it or is there a better way to tag the colors of bottles for recycling containers? --rugk (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Glass colour ?

Minor usages (only 584 in 2020) specify the colour of the glass in the value, see tab below.
Is it always in practice in 2020 ?
Should be allow theses values ?
If yes, we must update the wiki and iD / JOSM presets.

Table updated on 2020-07-17 with up-to-date taginfo data. Dónal (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Tag Count Values
recycling:glass_bottles:colour 128 white;green;brown
recycling:glass_bottles:colour 30 white
recycling:glass_bottles:colour 26 green
recycling:glass_bottles:colour 26 brown
recycling:glass_bottles 70,970 yes
recycling:glass_bottles 1,721 no
recycling:glass_bottles 35 brown
recycling:glass_bottles 41 green
recycling:glass_bottles 36 white
recycling:glass_bottles 1 green,white
recycling:glass_bottles 1 green,brown
recycling:glass_bottles 1 brown,white
recycling:glass_green 60 yes
recycling:glass_white 56 yes
recycling:glass_brown 48 yes
recycling:glass 64,379 yes
recycling:glass 12 white
recycling:glass 10 brown
recycling:glass 6 green
recycling:glass 1 yes;white;green;brown

--Pyrog (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Kraków in Poland had color specific container recycling for glass, though "white only" and "coloured" glass containers were always paired anyway, so such values were never necessary. And note that this values are allowed (Any tags you like), though it is not obligating editors such as iD, JOSM and StreetComplete or Vespucci to support this. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Better question would be - is there any case where such values are needed and useful "yes;white;green;brown" - is there any point accepting glass and not accepting some specific colors? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
For me, the  KISS answser is to tag only recycling:glass=yes or recycling:glass_bottles=yes.

Some countries collect clear (white) and coloured (brown or green) glass bottles. See examples in Belgium, Belgium, Czech Republic.
As you mentionned before, other collect white (clear), green and brown glass bottles. See examples in Netherland, United Kingdom.

So, could we discouraged these tags in the wiki and/or allow only yes/no values in editors ?
--Pyrog (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In Ireland, containers are separated by colour and it can be useful to know which colours are accepted at a location (annoying to arrive and only find 1 colour of the 3-4 you have). With the growing popularity of tools like, the data can certainly be used by data consumers. Dónal (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bottle deposits

In many US states, beverages are required to have an extra charge tacked on ("CRV" in California, "bottle deposit" in other states) as incentive to return the beverage container for recycling. In California (and maybe some other states), not all retailers that sell beverages will accept empties for deposit return, so it is useful to know where to find recycling centers that will do so. Maybe something like recycling:deposit_return=* could be used? (The other tags like recycling:cans=*, recycling:plastic_bottles=*, etc. would still be relevant.) —Larry Gilbert 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What about using recycling:system=* to name the kind of deposit system/network? I guess that deposit systems vary a lot worldwide, so this could help cope with it. I've seen such a suggestion in a discussion about Pfand systems on the German OSM forum --Tbarthelet (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We indeed need something to tag deposit machines. I propose recycling_type=deposit_machine as it fits the scheme nicely. The various recycling:*=* tags can be used to indicate whether cans, bottles or other types of waste are accepted. Furthermore, some tagging from amenity=vending_machine can be reused on those (esp. operator=*,network=*,ref=*,opening_hours=*, ...)

At last, we're gonna have to figure something out for how the deposit is paid: cash, electronically of with a coupon (e.g. usable in a nearby shop).

Ofcourse, recycling:deposit_machine=yes is not applicable - I'd expect a facility accepting and dismantling those machines ;) Pietervdvn (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

recycling_type for indoor cd and battery recycling pois

At Germany there are very often indoor paperboard containers for the collection of cds and batteries. How should this be tagged? May be as one oft the two following approaches?

1) recycling_type=container, indoor=yes, access=*

2) recycling_type=paperboard_container, access=* (indoor is implied by the recycling_type) --U715371 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple containers

I am not sure about whether I should use one or several nodes if there are several containers at the same place. If a cluster gathers several separated containers for glass, paper ... wouldn't it be more logicial to describe them as separates nodes ? I have a plan for a map to locate all kind of recycling points, and this could be useful for a better filtering.

"Recycling is used for a container". For me it's clear : 1 container = 1 node
--Pyrog (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I wondered the same but found out that people use only one node or area for recycling points consisting of multiple containers. In my opinion, this makes more sense as there is often one name or reference number for the whole recycling point. Besides, it is often not possible to tag the individual containers (because they are in a hut or because they are not put back in the same order after emptying). I also don't see the advantage to map every single container. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Mapping multiple containers as one object seems strictly preferable, easier to maintain and it has no loss of any useful data. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
So, the article for container, and the tag itself are worded in a way that implies 1 node=1 container. However, the wiki template also says it can be applied to areas.

For an area, where multiple containers are kept together (eg serving multiple apartment buildings: Mapillary OSM object), I tend to map those as recycling=container polygons. I don't see how this is worse than the same generalised approach with 1 node for the whole facility but have seen conflicting views. What's the consensus? Tohaklim (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Main negative is that it gets very annoying to edit/verify and container positions are often swapped with each other Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


Styrofoam is a brand name for a type of extruded polystyrene foam. It is also used colloquially to refer to expanded polystyrene foam. As these two materials are very similar I suspect the recycling amenity will accept them both. Using recycling:polystyrene_foam would be better. Peter Mead (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

difference between hardcore and rubble?

Can anyone suggest why both of these exist and reference each other? When would one be used and not the other? Would it be better if just one of those was used to mean that kind of material? Pmackay (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit strange to tag a "donate clothes box" as recycling... is not like rubbish! So how you suggest to tag it? Thanks! --Valeriobozz (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

They would be tagged recycling:clothes=yes. While some of the collected clothes can be re-used the rest will be broken down to create things such as padding and insulation. --Peter Mead (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, recycling:clothes=yes. Wikipedia says on Recycling is a process to convert waste materials into reusable material to prevent waste of potentially useful materials..." and on waste "Waste and wastes are unwanted or unusable materials. Waste is any substance which is discarded after primary use, or it is worthless, defective and of no use." so I think that fits your "donate clothes box" -- Emvee (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Those definitions from Wikipedia exclude re-use in my interpretation: "Recycling is a process to convert waste materials into reusable material" means that the product is not re-used as it is, and "Waste is any substance which is discarded after primary use, or it is worthless, defective and of no use" means the product can not fulfil it's primary use anymore. However, I do agree that this tag could be used for donation boxes/containers, but then the description needs to be adjusted. --Pbb (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the documentation now to specifically state that this tag can also be used for donation containers --Pbb (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose a feature Proposed features/donation in kind to mark that a place (shop, communit_center, recycling container) takes goods as donations maybe for a charity project, for use or selling. --ToastHawaii (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

recycling_type=container with recycling:paper=yes and :books/:magazines/...

In Germany containers with recycling:paper=yes include stuff like recycling:books=yes, recycling:magazines=yes and some some others. Are there containers only for books or magazines that these tags are really needed? I saw a lot of containers with a whole bunch of unnecessary tags like these here in Germany. But I'm not sure if there are really containers only for books or magazines? Ogmios (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It could be if recycling is expanded into collection of donated goods for re-use. There are containers that collect used clothes and used books that are later given away or sold in second-hand stores. --Pbb (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose a feature Proposed features/donation in kind to mark that a place (shop, communit_center, recycling container) takes goods as donations maybe for a charity project, for use or selling. --ToastHawaii (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

opening_hours or service_times

In Germany many containers have a defined time period for usage to prevent noise disturbance. Mostly this is represented with opening_hours=* but not documented in the wiki. In my personal opinion service_times=* would be better because opening_hours=* suggests that they are closed or opened while service_times=* suggests the supposed time for usage. Nonetheless I think one of them should be documented in the wiki. Which one is better in your opinion? Ogmios (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Useful combination: Add colour ?

It seems the containers are colored in many countries:

Note that it is useful to tag group of containers as one object, each is likely to have a different color. Also, tagging container colour seems to be of extremely low value, at least to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The wiki is clear : 1 container = 1 node ;)
The colour is a good idea (by country). Unfortunately, colours are not yet standardized in France (in 2020).
--Pyrog (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Implied exclusion

The document states "If there is at least one of the following materials tagged, the default value for the rest is "no"." I don't think this should be done like this, because there are some "main" and some "detail" tags here. For example recycling:paper=yes in many locations implies recycling:cartons=yes. You can't just conclude on "no" for an omitted detail tag if the main tag is specified "yes". --Pbb (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to fix it, in general feel free to make such obvious fixes - especially in case of noone protesting at talk page for months or years Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


There are more and more containers for recycling cigarette butts ( Because there is waste=cigarettes I propose to use the key recycling:cigarettes=yes

recycling:cartons=* vs recycling:paper_packaging=*

What is the difference? In Czechia the paper based beverage cartoons are often collected. What tag should be used for these?

Normally beverage cartons are coated with wax, so they are usually separated from non-waxed paper packaging. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose we deprecate recycling:waste=yes/no

  • introduce recycling:mixed=yes/no for a manually post-selected container
  • add bin=yes/no to indicate whether a waste_basket is attached

See my rationale in the linked mailing list discussion and feel free to join the conversation. Bkil (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that waste bins/baskets/containers that accept non-recyclable waste, aka 'rubbish', should not be marked with this tag, the majority of medium-to-large Household Waste Recycling Centres in the UK (sites that people drive to with a car full of recycling and waste) accept 'residual waste'. It is listed as one of the items that they accept. Therefore the tag recycling:waste=yes is applicable to them. I would prefer recycling:residual_waste=yes but many have been tagged already Jnicho02 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Reordering items

I propose to reorder items and put them into groups. For example white_goods, small_electrical_appliances, mobile_phones, electrical_items etc are now scattered in the list and it would be preferable to have them together.

It may be also beneficial to list values with significant use (for example 1000+ appearances that are not repeating broader category)? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I propose we deprecate recycling:food

I started a Proposed features/food sharing for a place of free food sharing and/or to reduce food waste. recycling:food=* would be deprecated by amenity=food_sharing.

Currently the tag recycling:food is used 19 times. I have checked these POIs, the tag is not used consistently. In my opinion these POIs can be changed to recycling:organic=yes and some to amenity=food_sharing.

See Talk:Proposed features/food sharing

I agree that probably all are tagging recycling:organic, or are about reuse (food sharing) not recycling. I would agree with replacing it by pointer to food sharing and recycling:organic. But I would not deprecate it for uses where there is actually recycling limited to food (not sure is it present anywhere) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I removed deprecate recycling:food from Proposed features/food sharing. I get some feedback that some mappers do not like recycling:organic=* because: "Organic food in English is food produced naturally without the use of chemical fertilizers, pest controls etc. It is a common term, and attracts a premium price. The French equivalent term is Bio. Using the term Organic implies only Organically produced food can be recycled." and a other I also found out that there are other tags with similar meaning e.g. recycling:green_waste=*, recycling:garden_waste=*, waste=organic, recycling:food_waste=* that are used. TagInfo I think all this tags means collection waste that can be used for recycling to biogas or compost.


Separate containers for soda cans and food cans.

In Ireland, recycling operators are starting to distinguish between soda cans and food cans due to differing materials. Sorting at source seems to help reduce the amount of sorting required later in the process.

Should additional tags be created? e.g. recycling:soda_cans=*, recycling:food_cans=*

Should the values for recycling:cans=* allow for values such as soda, drink, food, etc?

Analysis of taginfo data suggests no-one has made a distinction to date.

recycling:soda_cans=*, recycling:food_cans=* would match scheme used so far so seems strongly preferable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that this difference is because of the metal: beverage cans are made out of aluminium, while food cans are usually made out of steel. So most likely the distinction is recycling:aluminium=yes/no or recycling:aluminium_cans=yes/no vs recycling:steel_cans=* or recycling:food_cans=* or something similar --Jeisenbe (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point, that would make sense Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Plus 'soda' cans is, to me in the UK, an American term. 'drinks cans' or 'aluminium cans' make sense for a recycling facility Jnicho02 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear waste recycling

What tagging should I use for tagging nuclear waste recycling facilities? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Do you mean nuclear waste or spent fuel? I suspect they are large industrial facilities, like a factory or mill. Perhaps they are a kind of man_made=works if they produce usable metal. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The specific case I'm looking at is way West Valley Nuclear Reprocessing Plant which seems to be using a bunch of bespoke tagging that isn't in line with standard usage. See  West Valley Demonstration Project --ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like this site was original a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant which turned partially used nuclear fuel into usable nuclear fuel, but this function has been shut down since 1980, and it is now a nuclear waste clean up site where the remaining hazardous radioactive waste is being prepared for safe disposal, not recycling or reuse. I would use landuse=industrial certainly, but I don't think there is a precise tag for the type for this type of industrial nuclear waste processing facility. The subtag industrial=* is not very well organized or defined --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Drugs versus medications

The recycling:drugs tag only has a few hundred uses, my guess is that 99% of the places tagged with actually medications, and referring to medications as drugs is demeaning to people who take them. So, if no one cars I'd like to suggest using recycling:medication instead and sunset it as a tag while the usage is still pretty low. Of course if there's any cocaine or heroine recycling centers out there I'll leave them alone, but I highly doubt there is. Either way, OSM should use neutral, non-derogatory terms for tags when it can. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

PET beverage bottles only


Where i live, PET recycling points only accept PET bottles. Can i still tag them recycling:PET=yes or should i use a new tag recycling:PET_bottles=yes? --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

recycling:PET_bottles=yes seems strongly preferable if only bottles are allowed (@Dafadllyn:) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do so. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, only PET *drink* bottles are allowed, so i'll use the more specific recycling:PET_drink_bottles=yes. --Dafadllyn (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that many mappers understand "plastic_bottles" as synonymous to "PET_bottles". It doesn't seem to be enough to introduce a new tag, but we also need to agree on what the currently used tag actually means. --Mueschel (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There are plastic bottles that are not PET Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That's not my point - the important thing is that this is not obvious to those who used plastic_bottles so far. And it will not become obvious if a new key is introduced silently without changes to all the presets in editors. --Mueschel (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that people interested in mapping recycling facilities are aware of the difference between plastic bottles and PET beverage bottles. I'll write a message to the mailing list as you proposed. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Was discussed on tagging mailing list and is now documented. It seems fixed to me? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Recycling bins as opposed to large containers

In my opinion an additional recycling_type=* (e.g. recycling_type=bin) is needed to tag recycling bins like those found in parks (example) or at train stations (example) that are intended to throw away only one or two items while on the go (e.g. a PET bottle or a newspaper), as opposed to larger containers where people go to throw away multiple items collected at home (e.g. multiple PET bottles or a stack of waste paper). --Dafadllyn (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the general public allowed to recycle things in people's private recycling bins? Let alone, should they? On recycling_type=, anything with the word "type" in it is usually not good because the word can mean anything. There has to be a specific term to use. Maybe something like bin_size? (there's a map_size key). --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Both recycling "bins" (i.e. small recycling points, examples linked above) and big recycling containers (this example) are not private but for the public. The difference is that the smaller ones are intended for small quantities only. If you would throw away there a crate of glass bottles or a stack of waste paper, the bin would already be full. – recycling_type=* is already in use for recycling_type=container and recycling_type=centre. --Dafadllyn (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
"recycling_type=* is already in use." Cool, why did you ask then? I wouldn't personally go with it anyway. Especially since there's only two tags that have 99% of most of the use and neither is related to what your talking about. Recycling_type=bin only has 55 uses. Which is nowhere near enough to call it de facto or anything. Plus, if something is tagged with recycling_type=bin then people would be out on tagging it as a container. Although, you could say it's a given that a bin is a container, but they really mean the same thing and what your going for is the size of the container. Not if it's a container or a recycling center. Which seems to be the point in the tag. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW, there's a "container:whatever" namespace tagging scheme. I don't necessarily recommend it, especially if your going with container:type, but it's at least another possible option. Outside of that, it looks like there's 31 uses of "container." That would be the perfect tag IMO. Except the usage is pretty low. Plus, the usage is kind of iffy. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I asked because i want to hear opinions from other people on how to map those smaller recycling bins. Thanks for your ideas! I agree that recycling_type=bin might not be the best solution, because bins are containers too. On the other hand, using container=* would mean that over 200,000 recycling_type=container would need an additional tag. Maybe OSM editors could label recycling_type=container as "recycling point" instead of "recycling container". Thus, the distinction from "recycling bin" should be clear. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it would be useful - and it is a good point that if I want to get rid of 40 glass bottles then I do not want tiny bin that will fit 20 - if I use entire one and block it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that these containers should be tagged as recycling. I see them more like regular waste bins with the option to separate waste types. So maybe a subtag to amenity=waste_bin would be the better solution. --Mueschel (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Tagging these bins amenity=waste_basket would work if any kind of waste can be disposed of there (like in this example), but if only a small number of material can be disposed of there (e.g. only glass bottles, PET beverage bottles and aluminium packaging, like here), amenity=waste_basket seems misleading in my opinion. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Private vs. public

It seems private recycling bins should also be mapped, for their landmark value, but remembering to add


I mean we are supposed to map the Ground truth, not avoiding mapping e.g., private houses, instead only mapping public buildings. Jidanni (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)



This tag includes centers and containers, where the latter are much more numerous. In my opinion, "website" should not be in the infobox, but either in the article or in the recycling_type=centre article. website has been used only in 1% cases. And infobox should have only the most popular ones, not all possible. maro21 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I've moved name=* and website=* to Tag:recycling_type=centre. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Paper and plastic cups

How should recycling of paper cups and plastic cups be tagged? This note raising the question includes a photo of a recycling bin labeled with illustrations of a disposable coffee cup and a red “Solo”-style cup. – Andrew (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The tagging on node 2666623819 is correct. Cups can be either paper or plastic so they don't need another tag, current tagging is ok. maro21 21:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

key table entry templatification breaking page

If you templatified article, note that it should be

{{key table entry|recycling:magazines|2=Over 90% of uses repeats <code>recycling:paper=yes</code>


{{key table entry|recycling:magazines|Over 90% of uses repeats <code>recycling:paper=yes</code>

(due to breakage on = used in text - it was interpreted that "Over 90% of uses repeats <code>recycling:paper" is a parameter!)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe use 2= in all places so person who edits it will not break it by accident? Or go back to plain text table? @JesseFW: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: @JesseFW: I've replaced all tag examples including an equal sign with {{tag|recycling|subkey=...||...}}. However, i've wondered whether all these tag counts don't generate too much load on the TagInfo's servers. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dafadllyn: - note that code style was much better in results, now this links are poinless and linking back to the same page. And if anyone would try to use = sign in description they will be really confused. I think that (1) we should get back to code version unless pages actually exist (like recycling:plastic_bottle_caps=*) (2) adding 2= at start of every template seems a good idea to avoid surprising editors using = character Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, adding 2= is a good idea, thanks for that. The tag counts are utterly trivial load as compared with the load generated by taginfo pages themselves. As for using links to separate pages or not... it depends on if they are redirects, as Mateusz said. Going back to plain text makes it a lot harder to adjust things, and requires repeating the tag names multiples in each entry, so I don't think that's a good idea. JesseFW (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: The self links are unfortunate indeed. Actually they wouldn't happen if the table were located at Key:recycling. I'm going to revert my change. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is there nothing shown on the "Count" column? Did the template stop working? Cafeconleche (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently. I'll try and look into it when I get a chance. JesseFW (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The AJAX changed; I've updated the template and it's working again now. Thanks for the ping about it! JesseFW (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

glass tags named by glass type as opposed to shape

Shouldn't recycling:glass_bottles and recycling:glass_jars be replaced by the glass type (soda-lime vs pyrex, etc)? This would be precise, unambiguous, avoids problems for those who do not take the time to check the wiki, avoid a tag for each shape. What is the right place to report this? --Opk12 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

tagging mailing list and are places where tag deprecations are discussed. Note that deprecations have also negative effects, especially for well-established tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks --Opk12 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)