> > you can have pits with flush or without so this modification doesn't work. > What are the benefits of the changes you propose? > > I think it is referring to the "front-end" or "user-experience" of the toilet. In which case it wouldn't be both flush or pit, flush being water carries it away, and pit being a drop directly into a stationary container. The only "flush and pit" toilet I can think of would be a blackwater system. Which I think could use something like toilets:method or toilets:technology or anything else to define blackwater, septic, sewer, ect... So for example I would think of tagging a blackwater system like:
*amenity=toilets* *toilets:type=flush* *toilets:method=blackwater* *composting=yes* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste) I prefer your alternative to the proposal page, although I think the > ":type" is unnecessary, and toilets=pit would be better. > toilets=yes is already being used with amenity=* or shop=* to tag toilets on premises. I don't know if this creates a conflict. +1 for this alternative Best, Brian
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
