Import of sanitary_dump_station


While travelling with a camper, I was surprised by the huge amount of sanitary dump stations mapped in Sweden. These are places you can usually dump chemical toilets and gray water. See

However, almost of all of them were useless to a camper, as they were actually in the water. There is a proposal to tag these waterway=sanitary_dump_station, which makes sense the same way waterway=fuel makes sense.

I think all of these were added in one changeset:
It contains 330 of these objects, which seem to have come from this website:

Was the community informed of this? Is this source OK?

And how would you feel about a massive edit to remove the amenity=sanitary_dump_station from them, and let them keep just waterway=sanitary_dump_station ?


The data from is from a swedish state-owned agency. The import was made by a swedish osm user and is absolutly ok. Many or rather most of those sanitary dump stations are for pleasure crafts as those are forbidden by swedish law to dump sanitary waste into the water.

I would advice you not to touch those tags at all. Most of them are even completed (by me on the west-coast and by user fatuus on the east coast) with tagging for the Openseamap-project.

So there is aboslutly no reason to tinker with those tags. Just keep them as they are!

As you write the tag waterway=sanitary_dump_station is just a proposal.

We could just add vehicle=no and boat=yes. That would make it easy to see the purpose of the station and easy to sort it out when you search for them.

I can see the source of the skepticism since the source is not Transportstyrelsen’s domain. They link there from and that is open data to be used “without restrictions”

Of course the tagging can be discussed though. The hostile tone I see in archie’s last sentence might just be my perception, but is usually against the collaborative spirit of Openstreetmap.

fatuurs, don’t worry: I’m not going to change anything myself, especially not without a mandate.

But I don’t like subtags that say the opposite of the main tag. To me the vehicle=no solution feels like saying leisure=playground & child=no. The only sanitary dump stations I’m aware of that use amenity and are NOT for vehicles, are from this one import. So you can’t really expect data users to know. And that makes all the other amenity=sanitary_dump_stations unusable in Sweden, IMHO.

But if you guys work on improving the tagging documentation (preferable keeping the tagging mailing list in the loop), than that’s OK too of course. Others will then probably follow the same tagging style in the future.

Grillo, my scepticism came from a lack of a wiki page about the import, or a link to some explanation in the changeset, or the use of a dedicated import account. That all makes it look like a “wild import”, even if the source is OK (which I didn’t check).

(BTW for some reason I was only notiffied of Grillo’s reply, not fatuus’s. Don’t hesitate to send me a PM if you think I’m missing things)

I do not see why their should be any problem. We are tagging fuel stations for vessels the same way like we tag fuelstations for cars.

So i think we shall made improvements only att places we have checked on the ground. A general “boat=yes vehicel=no” ist not nesseary correct, att least same of the places can be used by cars.