Dec 21, 2020, 13:01 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> Am Mo., 21. Dez. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>>
>> Mapping military bases in Israel, Russia, mapping anything in China/North
>> Korea
>> etc should be welcomed in OSM if someone
Am Mo., 21. Dez. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Mapping military bases in Israel, Russia, mapping anything in China/North
> Korea
> etc should be welcomed in OSM if someone is doing this and wants that.
>
Mateusz, this is a quite
Dec 21, 2020, 08:18 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> OSMF board is not spending hours on monitoring wiki pages.
>>
>> I am spending hours on monitoring wiki pages
Thanks
Graeme
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> OSMF board is not spending hours on monitoring wiki pages.
>
> I am spending hours on monitoring wiki pages and noticed it only recently,
> and only in a new proposal.
>
> Anyone
Dec 21, 2020, 01:43 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you
>> are, but illegal in Britain, so you can not do it. Or you are
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you
> are, but illegal in Britain, so you can not do it. Or you are seeing things
> in country A and when you’re in country B you add them to OpenStreetMap
> (from
sent from a phone
> On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I would hate for somebody to be potentially arrested on spying / espionage
> charges for doing what we suggested :-(
imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you are,
but illegal in
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> is this referring to British law?
>
Not that I'm aware of (or Australian for that matter!), but I have seen
comments on various pages that it is illegal for people in both Israel &
Russia to map the location of military bases, &, of
sent from a phone
> On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> There has been concern raised on the talk page over the "If it's illegal,
> please don't map" warning that I included in the proposal.
is this referring to British law?
Cheers Martin
There has been concern raised on the talk page over the "If it's illegal,
please don't map" warning that I included in the proposal.
I put it there due to that issue being mentioned on several military
related pages, but also noticed that there are a few different wording of
it eg
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ.
>
>
> you must be talking of ice cream?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s
>
You got it. It's not the first
sent from a phone
> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ.
you must be talking of ice cream?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s___
Tagging mailing list
sent from a phone
> On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> one swallow does not make a summer. ;-)
>
> I don't see many sharing your viewpoint, either. :p
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values
Cheers Martin ___
On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 22:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
> >
> > (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't
> necessarily make it historic! :-))
>
> yes, but so far I didn’t read from anybody else that they would
sent from a phone
> On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't necessarily
> make it historic! :-))
yes, but so far I didn’t read from anybody else that they would share this
particular concern, one swallow does
Historic or abandoned military features, or military ruins, are clearly not
what this proposal is describing.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:44 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 02:00, St Niklaas wrote:
>
>>
>> Your text or proposal seems to be focused on modern times.
>>
>
>
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 02:00, St Niklaas wrote:
>
> Your text or proposal seems to be focused on modern times.
>
Yes, that's right, as it's intended for current, active, military
establishments only.
Since every town (vesting) or fortress (fort) has its own barracks in the
> past
>
Yes, but
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 03:59, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> when the term is military „base“ I would guess it will always be intended
> for more than a few weeks?
Yes, that's right.
Even if the label is „temporary“ it probably means years and not days?
>
Usually several months, at the very
sent from a phone
> On 19. Dec 2020, at 02:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> As with most things OSM, this tag would really only apply to permanent /
> long-term sites. "Temporary" locations "in the field" wouldn't be mapped or
> tagged this way (plus, of course, the challenges of locating
Thanks for those edits, Joseph.
They make things a little neater!
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 20:10, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> there are quite different kinds of bases, some are “permanent” and may be
> in the home country of the military, others may be in “allied“ nations,
> with contractual or defacto relationships, and there may be also those in
> conflict
sent from a phone
> On 18. Dec 2020, at 03:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> A base is the (almost invariably) enclosed area where a military
> establishment is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base. It
> will include a variety of buildings, facilities etc in the area, & may
As just posted on talk
Thanks. Yes, it should have a definition. How about:
A base is the (almost invariably) enclosed area where a military
establishment is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base. It
will include a variety of buildings, facilities etc in the area, & may be
used by
So far the proposal lacks a definition of the new tag military=base
The closest we get is "military=base for the area of each military
establishment" but that makes it sound like almost any kind of
landuse=military could have the military=base tag added.
How should military=base be defined?
--
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>
This proposal is also getting close to voting.
Precis:
*deprecate*:
- military
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> fully spelt out
>
Noted.
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
sent from a phone
> On 13. Dec 2020, at 03:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same
> for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ?
fully spelt out
Cheers Martin
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 12:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Break - I've just found that there actually are a handful of
> club=army_cadets (8), =air_cadets (5) & =sea_cadets (2) already in use,
> although all are undocumented, so they will be fine.
>
Seeing that these are already in use,
> Break - I've just found that there actually are a handful of
> club=army_cadets (8), =air_cadets (5) & =sea_cadets (2) already in use,
> although all are undocumented, so they will be fine. Are we all in
> agreement though, that there should be no reference to "military" against
> Cadet groups
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 19:30, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Which military service are the Italian Carabinieri? The US Marines?
>
What about the Guardia di Finanza?
>
Yep, as mentioned previously, there will be a number of fine, fuzzy lines
(& yes, both words apply!) to sort out, mainly between
sent from a phone
> On 12. Dec 2020, at 06:59, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> All names are opaque to computers, so we use standardized tags which can be
> translated one time, instead of needing to translate an operator=* tag for
> every language and every country to make it usable.
But a Russian naval base would presumably be tagged "operator=Военно-морской
флот" - if you do not read the Cyrrillic alphabet this is illegible. In
Japan it would be "operator=海上自衛隊"
All names are opaque to computers, so we use standardized tags which can be
translated one time, instead of
sent from a phone
> On 12. Dec 2020, at 00:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Going out there a bit, but I could also see cases where somebody can see
> fighter jets taking off & landing, so it's obviously an Air Force base
or a Navy base, or Marines. Look for a runway if you are interested
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 08:06, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> do we really need military_service=army given that these services will
> differ according to the country? We can tag operator =United States Army or
> “United States Marine Corps” and keep lists in the wiki for standardized
> names of
sent from a phone
> On 10. Dec 2020, at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> military_service=army
do we really need military_service=army given that these services will differ
according to the country? We can tag operator =United States Army or “United
States Marine Corps” and keep lists
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:42, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
>
> Yes, this makes sense in broad strokes, though some thought is needed as
> to the exact set of keys and values would be needed to describe these
> things.
>
Indeed! But we've still got another 10 - 12 days of RFC, so lo's of time
:-)
>
> Ground/land, air/aviation & maritime/naval all seem pretty well
> interchangeable, space is ready for the future & we should also include
> amphibious & probably Staff / Command / Headquarters for somewhere like
> this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/89605! Currently
>
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 07:41, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
>
>> Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air
>>> fields[2]. Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would
>>> not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base.
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> There are, in fact, military offices which are not within a
> landuse=military area, and there are military=danger_area features which
> are not in landuse=military
>
Offices not on base are possible, but will usually only be recruiting
>
>
> Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air
>> fields[2]. Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would
>> not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base.
>>
>> To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with
Once again, thanks everybody for your thoughts & comments! This is great,
please keep them coming!
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> I agree, and this can be easily fixed by changing the key to describe what
> we are actually specifying: "What military service branch is
> The Wikipedia pages on the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and British Army
>> use "military service"
>>
> sometimes too, and mention the overall "British Armed Services", "Her
>> Majesty's Naval Service", etc.
>>
>
> The same goes for the dialect spoken by that page's author.
>
> However, whilst
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:08, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Wikipedia says: "The British Armed Forces, also known as Her Majesty's
> Armed Forces, are the military services responsible for the defence of the
> United Kingdom"... so perhaps the best British term is "military service"?
>
We cannot be
"Service" is the right term for what is being described (e.g. army, navy,
air force, etc), and is consistent with UK terminology[1].
However, it also assumes that every country's military forces are neatly
grouped into these categories. The Chinese military is particularly
complex - the Chinese
Wikipedia says: "The British Armed Forces, also known as Her Majesty's
Armed Forces, are the military services responsible for the defence of the
United Kingdom"... so perhaps the best British term is "military service"?
The Wikipedia pages on the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and British Army use
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 07:28, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key.
>
> Though this is based on my US English understanding of the military
> terminology. Do they call them "military service branches" in British
> English too?
>
"British
>From the talk page:
> "Base" can have different meanings in different contexts. At some future
point we might regret having defined base=* to mean military bases. Maybe
military_base=*. --Brian de Ford (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and this can be easily fixed by changing the key
I've now incorporated all (I think?) the comments from the talk page into
the proposal, if you'd like to check the wording?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
Thanks
Graeme
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> military bases might house intelligence facilities which are known and
> could be tagged.
>
They could, if you can identify them, but as mentioned above, should we be?
Thanks
Graeme
___
sent from a phone
> On 8. Dec 2020, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service
> branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military).
>
> It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:13, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> This is an interesting idea.
>
> But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service
> branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military).
>
> It might be better if there were a way to tag the
This is an interesting idea.
But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service
branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military).
It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for any sort of
military feature, including military=office,
Brian came up with a suggestion that bases also be tagged with an
appropriate admin level (2 / 4) to show at which level of Government they
are controlled.
Just wondering - I know that the US has State controlled forces eg National
Guard, but are there any / many other countries that have forces
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:33, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> I fixed that for you, it should just be status=proposed, and the template
> does the rest of the magic!
>
Thanks, Brian!
Another one to lock away in memory :-)
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging
I fixed that for you, it should just be status=proposed, and the template
does the rest of the magic!
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
>>
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>
But when I look at it, it's saying it's in Inactive status so not sure what
I've done there?
Suggestions
56 matches
Mail list logo
