Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:50 AM, bkil wrote: > > There are lots of bomb shelters, although nobody knows how to tag > these. Sounds like you found something that needs a proposal! ^___^ Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
In that case, there won't be a lot of assembly points in Hungary, if any. I don't know any private building that has an evacuation plan, but I do know a few office buildings that have one, and usually they are the ones with the non-trivial ones anyway, taking care of thousands of people per building. I don't view this as micro mapping at all. However, we would be micromapping if we started mapping evacuation routes as well, both indoors and outdoors. There are lots of bomb shelters, although nobody knows how to tag these. I've found various attempts: shelter_type=bomb_shelter shelter_type=bomb shelter=bomb bunker_type=bomb_shelter bunker_type=bomb bunker_type=air_raid_shelter adit_type=bomb_shelter building=air-raid_shelter building=fallout_shelter emergency=air_raid_shelter On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:29 AM John Willis wrote: > > Hmm... The active shooter discussion brought up some good things to think > about. > > > As far as I know, we are not mapping the evacuation plans of individual > buildings with assembly_point. > > When talking about the schools, we talked about shelters and assembly_points. > > The pitch at a public school is often considered an assembly_point - not just > for the children, but for the entire neighborhood. It is a government > designated place for people to go during a large-scale disaster > > Perhaps thinking of those as active shooter safe rooms as "shelters" is > wrong, and the mere evacuation point for a random private building is not > something to include in emergency=* > > Perhaps having some evacuation_plan=* key and an accompanying relation can > let individual buildings and complexes map areas, points, and evacuation > routes on a micro level (like indoor mapping , ie: the fire evacuation routes > and meeting point outside for a large hotel), **but I don't think mapping a > place designated for an individual building evacuation in case of fire is > proper for =assembly_point.** They are for the *public* to gather and receive > aid and possible rescue in a large scale disaster. They are usually > designated and operated by the government, and mapped and signed by the > government, so they know where to send rescue personnel. > > The only exception I can see is for tornado shelter or bomb shelter - as > their physical existence is the "help" - and (I assume) are publically > accessible assembly_points, even in private commercial buildings, and they > blur the line between shelter and assembly_point. I don't know how to map > those, as I am not very familiar with them. > > But Having a bunch of assembly_points coating a downtown area, even with > access=private, would turn into tag pollution. The 2-3 locations (the school > ground, the park, and the sports complex) would be lost in a sea of points on > lawns and parking lots no one would care to be. > > If a large concrete mall near a coastline has a outside, designated, > publically accessible stairway to the roof and signs telling people to > evacuate there in case of tsunami, the fact that it is "privately operated" > is not as important as it is publically accessible for *anyone* looking for > Saftey. And the fact that any random building just happens to be tall and > have stairs is not enough - has to publically known and publically accessible. > > Our local elementary school grounds are the designated evacuation point for > our community in case of a failure of a nearby dam - we received flyers > showing the hazard map and evacuation points. > > The building evacuation points do not feel like those are in the same > category. > > The idea of assembly_point being publically accessible and designated for > this purpose is the most important point. > > The narrow_definion of assembly_point seems best. > > Javbw > > > On Oct 19, 2018, at 2:42 AM, bkil wrote: > > > > The reason is probably to both increase survival rate by taking > > everybody as far as possible from danger and to ease the work of > > firefighters by not gathering a crowd around the building in question. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
Hmm... The active shooter discussion brought up some good things to think about. As far as I know, we are not mapping the evacuation plans of individual buildings with assembly_point. When talking about the schools, we talked about shelters and assembly_points. The pitch at a public school is often considered an assembly_point - not just for the children, but for the entire neighborhood. It is a government designated place for people to go during a large-scale disaster Perhaps thinking of those as active shooter safe rooms as "shelters" is wrong, and the mere evacuation point for a random private building is not something to include in emergency=* Perhaps having some evacuation_plan=* key and an accompanying relation can let individual buildings and complexes map areas, points, and evacuation routes on a micro level (like indoor mapping , ie: the fire evacuation routes and meeting point outside for a large hotel), **but I don't think mapping a place designated for an individual building evacuation in case of fire is proper for =assembly_point.** They are for the *public* to gather and receive aid and possible rescue in a large scale disaster. They are usually designated and operated by the government, and mapped and signed by the government, so they know where to send rescue personnel. The only exception I can see is for tornado shelter or bomb shelter - as their physical existence is the "help" - and (I assume) are publically accessible assembly_points, even in private commercial buildings, and they blur the line between shelter and assembly_point. I don't know how to map those, as I am not very familiar with them. But Having a bunch of assembly_points coating a downtown area, even with access=private, would turn into tag pollution. The 2-3 locations (the school ground, the park, and the sports complex) would be lost in a sea of points on lawns and parking lots no one would care to be. If a large concrete mall near a coastline has a outside, designated, publically accessible stairway to the roof and signs telling people to evacuate there in case of tsunami, the fact that it is "privately operated" is not as important as it is publically accessible for *anyone* looking for Saftey. And the fact that any random building just happens to be tall and have stairs is not enough - has to publically known and publically accessible. Our local elementary school grounds are the designated evacuation point for our community in case of a failure of a nearby dam - we received flyers showing the hazard map and evacuation points. The building evacuation points do not feel like those are in the same category. The idea of assembly_point being publically accessible and designated for this purpose is the most important point. The narrow_definion of assembly_point seems best. Javbw > On Oct 19, 2018, at 2:42 AM, bkil wrote: > > The reason is probably to both increase survival rate by taking > everybody as far as possible from danger and to ease the work of > firefighters by not gathering a crowd around the building in question. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
How do you map the following? Two buildings next to each other have dedicated assembly points on the front yard. However the twist is that the assembly point of the first building is in front of the second building and vice versa. The reason is probably to both increase survival rate by taking everybody as far as possible from danger and to ease the work of firefighters by not gathering a crowd around the building in question. Is there some kind of a relation for this? On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:48 PM John Willis wrote: > > Thanks - I added a small note about the tsunami elevation in the examples. > > Javbw > > > On Sep 23, 2018, at 9:14 PM, Daniele Santini wrote: > > > > Ok, I updated the existing proposal > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
Thanks - I added a small note about the tsunami elevation in the examples. Javbw > On Sep 23, 2018, at 9:14 PM, Daniele Santini wrote: > > Ok, I updated the existing proposal ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
Ok, I updated the existing proposal (the link is the same, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/assembly_point:purpose ) moving from assembly_point:purpose= to assembly_point:=* . Cheers, Daniele Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 06:05:59 +0900 > From: John Willis > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose > Message-ID: <39497331-d154-430f-85df-f4713c678...@mac.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > On Sep 22, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Daniele Santini > wrote: > > > > edit the proposal substituting the old tag and values with the new tags > or create a new proposal with the new tags? > > If you feel the original proposal (or the discussion around it) is > valuable, start a new one. If it is of minor or no importance, just rewrite > the existing page. You can note "originally started as > assembly_point:purpose=tsunami, etc., " > > Under "rationale", you can use it as an example where assigning a single > value is not flexible enough to accurately tag the multi-use nature of most > assembly_points. > > This will also document the originally proposed tag's role in refining the > currently proposed one, and show up in OSM searches without leading to a > dead proposal page. > > Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
> On Sep 22, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Daniele Santini wrote: > > edit the proposal substituting the old tag and values with the new tags or > create a new proposal with the new tags? If you feel the original proposal (or the discussion around it) is valuable, start a new one. If it is of minor or no importance, just rewrite the existing page. You can note "originally started as assembly_point:purpose=tsunami, etc., " Under "rationale", you can use it as an example where assigning a single value is not flexible enough to accurately tag the multi-use nature of most assembly_points. This will also document the originally proposed tag's role in refining the currently proposed one, and show up in OSM searches without leading to a dead proposal page. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
> Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 06:42:30 +0900 > From: John Willis > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose > Message-ID: <688ef169-5441-4a7b-819f-3764eac4c...@mac.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least > fire and earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose. > > > Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the > location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters. > > Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people > want to map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for > one aspect. > > Tsunami (height in M) > Earthquake > Fire > Landslide > Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash > floods. > Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit) > > With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very > important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly > fallout shelters. > > But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have > no :foobar=tags. > > Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the > safe top of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go > here. Same with tornado. > > Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they > will not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide > risks, and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake. > > :Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes > just means it is "safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*. > > Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits > all the implied traits. > > Javbw. > This makes sense. Should I edit the existng proposal adding this alternative, edit the proposal substituting the old tag and values with the new tags or create a new proposal with the new tags? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
On 22/09/18 07:42, John Willis wrote: On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least fire and earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose. Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters. Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people want to map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for one aspect. Some are atom bomb shelters. Some are in the open, possibly a car park - away from the building where the alarm has been activated - usually a fire alarm. Some 'multi purpose' assembly points would also be used for bomb threats. For bomb threats the location should not be known nor regular as the bomb could be placed within the assembly point to cause maximum devastation. This kind should not be mapped. Tsunami (height in M) Earthquake Fire Landslide Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash floods. Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit) With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly fallout shelters. But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have no :foobar=tags. Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the safe top of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go here. Same with tornado. Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they will not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide risks, and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake. :Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes just means it is "safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*. Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits all the implied traits. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
> On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least fire > and earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose. Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters. Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people want to map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for one aspect. Tsunami (height in M) Earthquake Fire Landslide Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash floods. Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit) With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly fallout shelters. But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have no :foobar=tags. Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the safe top of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go here. Same with tornado. Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they will not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide risks, and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake. :Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes just means it is "safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*. Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits all the implied traits. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
Link of the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/assembly_point:purpose . Hi, I propose to add the tag key assembly_point:purpose to specify which emergency an emergency=assembly_point is designed for. Possible values would be fire, tzunami, earthquake, tornado, etc. Kind regards, Danysan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
