What's a good tagging scheme for container-deposit item holders on waste baskets?

General talk
1

In Gothemburg, Sweden a common feature attached to waste baskets are holders for cans and bottles included in our container-deposit system. The rationale is to spare economically vulnerable people having to dig through trash to find the items.

image
image1080Ă—1920 330 KB

I want to map these features but struggle to find a good naming scheme. As far as I now there are no existing holders mapped in OSM.

My idea of amenity=waste_basket with the addition of container_deposit_item_holder=yes seems cumbersome. Any suggestions?

2

How about seperated_redeemables=yes.

3

Without doubt a good idea but hard to create an understandable tag for it. Apparently the holders are designated for bottles and cans being subject to deposit payment as shown by the symbols on the holder itself.

To keep it simple (KISS principle) and understandable I would go for something like “bottle+can_holder=yes” and forget about the deposit condition.

1 Like
4

I like both suggestions. The KISS principle is important but at the same time if the redeemable part is omitted it’s almost mimics the specified tags for recycling bins.

5

That is why I proposed this tagging. Dropping bottles or cans into these holders to be returned against refund of the deposit is not that much different from dropping bottles or cans into a recycling container.

If someone cares about sustainability and reduction of waste they will know the differenc between a recycling container and a bottle+can holder attached to a waste bin.People not caring about these issues wouldn’t care either if the empty bottle they want to get rid off is subject to deposit or not. If they see one of your bottle holders they will just drop their bottle there and go away.

A tag making clear that the holder is exclusively for bottles and cans being subject to deposit refund would not have much influence on how people use the holder imho.

1 Like