Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

quot;place" tag? Or did we maybe have that discussion already? --Lukas *Gesendet:* Freitag, 17. April 2020 um 18:28 Uhr *Von:* "Manon Viou" *An:* "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location Hello ever

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location Hello everyone,   It seems I haven't been very clear in my explanations; I sometimes have a bit of trouble choosing the right word (especially in English). And I think the “small”/”large” discussion is going the wrong dire

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello everyone, It seems I haven't been very clear in my explanations; I sometimes have a bit of trouble choosing the right word (especially in English). And I think the “small”/”large” discussion is going the wrong direction… The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 23:33, António Madeira wrote: > > Do we divide big schools from small schools? Or small theatres from big > theatres? things can change nature just by changing size or quantity. We have different tags for a single tree and a tree row and a forest.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

On 17/4/20 5:29 am, Manon Viou wrote: Hello, According to Martin and Warin, the difference between large and small refugee site is not clear enough, Martin suggested to use population capacity, for instance less than 200 people fro small refugee site, Warin suggested to use number of square

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Maybe I missed something on this long thread but I don't understand why we need to divide large refugee site from small refugee site. Why create ambiguities if all of them are refugee sites? Do we divide big schools from small schools? Or small theatres from big theatres? Why don't we just create

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello,  According to Martin and Warin, the difference between large and small refugee site is not clear enough,  Martin suggested to use population capacity, for instance less than 200 people fro small refugee site,  Warin suggested to use number of square meters, 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

On 16/4/20 1:23 am, Manon Viou wrote: Thanks Martin, yes, refugee sites should always be temporary even if, as you said, some turn to be very long term places. That's why we do not suggest to add temporary/permanent options. Manon In which case the description for amenity=social_facility +

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Am Mi., 15. Apr. 2020 um 17:37 Uhr schrieb Manon Viou : > Hello again Martin, > I agree large and small are quite relative concepts, I proposed to set a > threshold to "less than 5 buildings" because it was the easiest way I > found. I'm not sure counting people is feasible at least for remote

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello again Martin, I agree large and small are quite relative concepts, I proposed to set a threshold to "less than 5 buildings" because it was the easiest way I found. I'm not sure counting people is feasible at least for remote mapping or data integration from NGO or other

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Thanks Martin, yes, refugee sites should always be temporary even if, as you said, some turn to be very long term places. That's why we do not suggest to add temporary/permanent options.  Manon Le 15 avril 2020 à 11:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2020, at 10:17, Manon Viou wrote: > > amenity=refugee_site and amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter. > amenity=refugee_site is for large refugee site > amenity=social_facility and social_facility=shelter is f or small refugee > site (less than 5

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2020, at 01:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would think amenity=refugee_site is an area set aside for the non-temporary > residential use of refugees maybe I’m a dreamer, but I would expect all refugee related features to be “temporary”, even

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello Warin,  the description does ditinguish amenity=refugee_site and amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter.  amenity=refugee_site is for large refugee site amenity=social_facility and social_facility=shelter is f or small refugee site (less

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Problem. The present description does not distinguish this '*amenity=refugee_site*' from amenity=social_facility and social_facility=shelter. I would think amenity=refugee_site is an area set aside for the non-temporary residential use of refugees. * * The meaning of 'temporary' is not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello, Actually RFC for refugee site location mapping started March 25, Since this day, we received and exchanged on the proposal and made changes to the former proposal, that’s what RFC is all about no?  , I do not know if according to this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

The minimum an RFC is required to be open is 2 weeks. Same with voting. On 11/4/20 1:54 am, Manon Viou wrote: Hello all, We have modified the proposed features/Refugee Site Location 2  according to discussions

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello all, We have modified the  proposed features/Refugee Site Location 2 according to discussions regarding how to best tag places sheltering refugee and/or internally displace persons. Thank you to the contributors who help finding a solution to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

> QUESTION : Oukasz was wondering if the tag refugee_site=yes does necessarily > have to be associated with place or landuse? As mentioned, it would be fine to use a new "key" like "refugee_site" for a feature that is only mapped as nodes, but if it is going to be used on areas it's important to

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Dear all, Thank you Joseph and Stuart for your very valuable comments, these exchanges are very constructive and personally I learn a lot about how OSM database works. I agree with both of you, it seems more appropriate to use a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hi Joseph, Yes, agree that given the above constraints it makes sense to use this namespace as an attachment to a node or an area which has a main top-level key already included in the local polygon keys object.What is the process for requesting to have a new key added to the local

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

> If refugee_site were added to the local polygon_keys object you mentioned, > how long would it take for the effects of this updated object to propagate? Now that I've re-read the full text of the new proposal, it looks like the author is intending refugee_site=* to be added to a feature which

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Dear Joseph, A couple of questions as the use of a clean namespace will all data segregated seems appealing : 1. If refugee_site were added to the local polygon_keys object you mentioned, how long would it take for the effects of this updated object to propagate ? A couple of weeks, months ?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Also, note that it is incorrect to add place=village and landuse=residential to the same area. A place=village or place=town is mapped as a single node, since settled places do not usually have a well-defined boundary, while landuse=residential is mapped as an area. And the landuse=residential

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Thank you for being willing to work on this and listen to suggestions from the community. I agree that, under the current, very broad definition of "amenity=social_facility", a single building which is used as a shelter for refugees could be tagged as "amenity=social_facility", but a large camp

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Dear Manon, This new proposal is a big improvement over the previous proposal and properly addresses the many objections to place=refugee_site. A flexible namespace with segregated data related to refugee sites will allow ongoing refugee site data maintenance by facilitating operator source data

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Dear All, Discussions continue regarding how to best tag places sheltering refugees and/or internally displaced persons. Before jumping into the discussion regarding the pros and cons of the alternative solutions debated so far, I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hi Joseph, Would segregation of data via a namespace tagging solution, as an alternative to using place=refugee_site, address these concerns regarding fuzzy "place" boundaries and the lack of observability (ie source based descriptive data)? Best regards, Stuart On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 00:40

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

In the previous proposal (Proposed features/Refugee Site Location) at least 6 people who opposed the proposal mentioned the key "place=" was not acceptable. Comments: "What about places that are de facto village/town but still administered by UNHCR or another humanitarian organization or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello, I followed the recent discussion on the OSM France mailing list. Maybe there is value in creating a namespace for refugee_site instead of place=refugee_site, especially if this tag will be sometimes be added to nodes or areas which have other attributes not directly to being a refugee

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello,  The proposed feature place=refugee_site to provide a way for mapping places sheltering refugees and/or internally displaced persons fleeing the effects of a natural disaster or a political crisis for example has already been debated and voted on from

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

30 Jan 2020, 10:02 by m_v...@cartong.org: > We would like to propose a very generic tag this time to map the location of > refugee camps. We propose to use the tag  > place=refugee_site > > See the proposal wiki page : > >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Dear all, There is not yet a real consensus within the OSM community regarding the way to reference refugee sites in OSM. As a result, tagging is applied inconsistently which makes it quite difficult to find and use this data. In the past years there have