Open Defecation Areas

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Open Defecation Areas

Warin
From  a current posting on the HOT list is for Open Deification Areas.


Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open,
specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by
about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year
then that is 8.5 billion areas."

Taginfo has 53 uses of watsan:open_defecation_area=yes, no wiki. Most use in Africa. just east nor east of Nairobi.

Is this the 'best' tag to use?

Would 'open_defecation_area=yes' be better?

And I'd add a wiki page ..

There seems to be little consideration by HOT on asking the tagging group nor on documenting the tags they use.
Possibly this comes from past results of these contacts. I have very thick skin.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Graeme Fitzpatrick
Would you also tag the area as hazardous / contaminated?

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Warin
On 09/09/19 11:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Would you also tag the area as hazardous / contaminated?

Unfortunately I think that is a default condition. All the more reason
to map them with suitable tags.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Jez Nicholson
A 'watsan:' namespace appears unnecessary unless these are areas specifically sponsored by Watsan.

and I noticed a typo/autocorrect from Warin "...posting on the HOT list is for Open *Deification* Areas" which may lead to the creation of gods rather than other items.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:40 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/09/19 11:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Would you also tag the area as hazardous / contaminated?

Unfortunately I think that is a default condition. All the more reason
to map them with suitable tags.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Warin
Hi,

On 09.09.19 02:37, Warin wrote:
> Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open,
> specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by
> about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year
> then that is 8.5 billion areas."

I don't follow that logic. If the 300k inhabitants of my city each use a
bus stop 100 times per year, then that means our city has 30 million bus
stops?

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Warin
On 09/09/19 18:20, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 09.09.19 02:37, Warin wrote:
>> Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open,
>> specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by
>> about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year
>> then that is 8.5 billion areas."
> I don't follow that logic. If the 300k inhabitants of my city each use a
> bus stop 100 times per year, then that means our city has 30 million bus
> stops?
>

Good point.
I think what occurs is that an area is used until it reaches 'end of life' and so a new area is then used. Could happen 10 times a year.

How many people use the one area ? I have no idea. In dense urban areas there would have to be a few people using the one place?

I do know that in some areas of the world a farmers family will defecate in their fields,
I think they are not constantly in one area but distribute the waste so as not to swamp one place.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson

9 Sep 2019, 10:12 by [hidden email]:
A 'watsan:' namespace appears unnecessary unless these are areas specifically sponsored by Watsan.
Even in that case it would be unwanted,
and something like operator or owner 
or similar tag would be used.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas Add disused or abandoned

Warin
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
One important thought.

Past open defecation areas will need to remain mapped... but not as
areas in use.

I think these are clearly life cycle tags .. but

disused does not appeal as it is unlikely that it could be used again
until quite some time has past (pun sorry)

abandoned might be better. 'abandoned:open_defecation_area=yes'???

Thoughts?



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Warin
Hi,

Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here. I have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.

I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an experiment by someone new.

I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely to use 10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate. Apologies

Proper Details here


For UN Sustainable development goal 6


There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera was spread by dirty water


This was made possible because they had a map.

My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA) then it will inspire communities to do something about it.

My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade. This is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent fertiliser.

Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered on the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be inspired to make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important features of the map.

I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable to the community first.

shall I go ahead with the proposal?

Cheers

Bob



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Jez Nicholson
You are wanting to tag something that is identifiable on-the-ground. It could be of great social value. What's not to like? The question is more about the detail rather than whether it should happen.

Has there been any discussion about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets applying (or not) to an open area?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM Bob Kerr via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here. I have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.

I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an experiment by someone new.

I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely to use 10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate. Apologies

Proper Details here


For UN Sustainable development goal 6


There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera was spread by dirty water


This was made possible because they had a map.

My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA) then it will inspire communities to do something about it.

My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade. This is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent fertiliser.

Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered on the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be inspired to make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important features of the map.

I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable to the community first.

shall I go ahead with the proposal?

Cheers

Bob


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Tagging mailing list
Hi,

I agree with you, that is why I need everyone’s input before making the proposal

I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and it would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high with plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more a sign that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different symbol. I was thinking of a squatting man symbol

 Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that may interfere with other land use tags. So I still lean towards open_defecation=yes

Thoughts?

Cheers

Bob


On 10 Sep 2019, at 12:58, Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]> wrote:

You are wanting to tag something that is identifiable on-the-ground. It could be of great social value. What's not to like? The question is more about the detail rather than whether it should happen.

Has there been any discussion about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets applying (or not) to an open area?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM Bob Kerr via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here. I have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.

I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an experiment by someone new.

I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely to use 10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate. Apologies

Proper Details here


For UN Sustainable development goal 6


There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera was spread by dirty water


This was made possible because they had a map.

My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA) then it will inspire communities to do something about it.

My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade. This is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent fertiliser.

Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered on the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be inspired to make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important features of the map.

I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable to the community first.

shall I go ahead with the proposal?

Cheers

Bob


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Paul Allen


On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 18:48, Bob Kerr via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and it would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high with plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more a sign that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different symbol. I was thinking of a squatting man symbol

True.  I'd hate to go to what the map led me to believe was a public toilet and find it was
actually one of these things.

 Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that may interfere with other land use tags.

Not really a problem.  Turn the existing landuse=whatever into the outer of a multipolygon
and add landuse=open_defecation_area as an inner of the multipolygon.  It's not that hard
to do, especially as iD has made it a lot easier to cut and paste tags between objects.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 04:09, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 18:48, Bob Kerr via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and it would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high with plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more a sign that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different symbol. I was thinking of a squatting man symbol

True.  I'd hate to go to what the map led me to believe was a public toilet and find it was
actually one of these things.

"Slightly" tongue in cheek, but render the area in a light - mid brown colour, with a regular pattern of https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/poop icons across it (similar to dog-parks, forested areas & so on) ? :-)
 

 Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that may interfere with other land use tags.

Not really a problem.  Turn the existing landuse=whatever into the outer of a multipolygon
and add landuse=open_defecation_area as an inner of the multipolygon.  It's not that hard
to do, especially as iD has made it a lot easier to cut and paste tags between objects.

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated) 

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Paul Allen
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated)

Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle z-indexes
to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe.  It also doesn't always
work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get
waterlogged trees.   It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're
asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or one of
two answers chosen at random.  A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper,
but not much more.

Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.  If they do,
I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Joseph Eisenberg
Overlapping “landuse=“ is fine when it represents reality correctly. For example, many city centres are both residential and commercial or commercial and retail, when the buildings are mixed use.

Similarly, if you are micro mapping private residential lawns with landuse=grass, or residential gardens with leisure=garden, these do not need to be excluded from the residential landuse. (Not that I would waste time on mapping private lawns myself, but if you want to...)

-Joseph

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated)

Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle z-indexes
to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe.  It also doesn't always
work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get
waterlogged trees.   It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're
asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or one of
two answers chosen at random.  A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper,
but not much more.

Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.  If they do,
I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen



11 Sep 2019, 01:54 by [hidden email]:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated)

Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle z-indexes
to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe. 
well, reality is that sometimes area
is actually both tree-covered area and
for example university or residential area.
It also doesn't always
work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get
waterlogged trees.
this is intentional to encourage correct
mapping of tree-covered areas.
  It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're
asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or one of
two answers chosen at random.
note that in many cases getting two
answers correctly represents reality

  A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper,
but not much more.

Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.  If they do,
I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this
and in even more cases multipolygon
should be used

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Warin
On 11/09/19 15:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



11 Sep 2019, 01:54 by [hidden email]:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it wouldn't be abbreviated)

Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle z-indexes
to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe. 
well, reality is that sometimes area
is actually both tree-covered area and
for example university or residential area.

Trees are a land cover, not necessarily a land use.

Universities and residential areas are a land use.
It also doesn't always
work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get
waterlogged trees.
this is intentional to encourage correct
mapping of tree-covered areas.

I wish there was more rendering that showed errors.
  It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're
asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or one of
two answers chosen at random.
note that in many cases getting two
answers correctly represents reality
Or even 3..
Land cover e.g sand
Land use and e.g. quarry
Land form e.g. dune


  A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper,
but not much more.

Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.  If they do,
I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this
and in even more cases multipolygon
should be used

Many people have problems with multipolygon relations..

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

dieterdreist
From what I have seen in an open defecation google image search I got to the impression we cannot map these as landuse features. I can understand someone could draw a map and mark the "open defecation areas", on a city scale, but likely not on a street scale, these are not punctual features like toilets, nor are they clearly delimited areas. How would it be verifiable, especially the borders will likely be soft/fuzzy borders and not suitable for a representation with polygons in the OSM data model.

We could do it the other way round: map which buildings don't have toilets, but this would require a very fine grained survey and might also raise privacy concerns.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open Defecation Areas

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Warin
Hi,

Mapping areas for Open Defecation may be a little tricky in the web editor but no problem in JOSM. In many slums Open Defecation Areas(ODA) can be a lot bigger than the size of a house. Individual nodes would be used in places like between houses or dead ends. Some areas are so big they have become permanent. This is why I think the landuse tag is relevant to this situation. I can understand referencing google maps but their mapping in areas where they don’t get revenue is not that great.

Cheers

Bob

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging