[Tagging] Tag:amenity=refugee_site
Hello everyone, The OSM tag proposal Amenity=refugee_site has been validated with 31 votes for and 2 votes against. ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location_2) I would like to thank you for your participation and the shared advices to find the most suitable solution. We will create the wiki page for this new tag very soon. We also plan to update and complete the more general wiki page presenting refugee camp mapping on OSM ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping). If you are interested in this project, let me know! Best regards, Manon ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting – Tag:amenity=refugee_site
Dear all, Voting for the new proposed tag Amenity=refugee_site in now open. This proposal aims to provide a way for mapping refugee sites. Use Amenity=refugee_site for human settlement sheltering refugees and/or internally displaced persons fleeing the effects of a political crisis or a natural disaster for example. Refugee sites gather not only housing accommodation but also diverse facilities that provides services to refugees. This is the second proposed feature, it was posted for comment on March 25. We modified the proposed tag according to the valuable comments we received. Thank you very much to the contributors who help finding a solution to have a consistent tagging to map refugee sites ! Please find below the proposal which is being put to vote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location_2 Best regards, Manon ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 new tag we want to propose is to map refugee camps or as it’s seems better to say in English now : refugee sites. So we want to map human settlement. The social_facility=shelter tag is very suitable to map single or individual building or a small group of buildings like a refugee center, an accommodation center or a care and hosting center for refugees. But (according to many people now) the social_facility=shelter tag is not suitable to map refugee camps that are human settlements, populated places where hundreds or thousands people live. That’s why we propose to create a new value for the amenity tag : amenity=refugee_site, to map human settlement where refugees can find protection. kind regards, Manon Le 17 avril 2020 à 13:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 meters, For what I have observed, small facilities sheltering refugee (for instance: refugee centers, accommodation center, care and hosting center, church) are not exactly what we can call refugee site. the difference, beyond the number of building, number of population or square meter, is quite obvious. ?? How is it 'obvious'??? I have no idea of what that 'obvious' thing is! Is it really necessary to set a precise rule ? At the moment there is nothing that can be used to distinguish between the two. Suggestion have been made on the number of buildings, number of people and the area. Please tell us how you distinguish between them. I would rather suggest to share some example (like the ones mentioned above) in order to help contributors to decide if it rather an amenity=refugee_site or a social_facility=shelter. Examples are fine. But there must be a statement in words of the difference between them. Regards, Manon Le 16 avril 2020 à 02:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 + social_facility=shelter is not correct. If it is to be done on area then specify the number of square meters rather than the number of buildings??? Buildings can be a of different sizes and capacities. An area could be more consistent as to the number of people. Imagery may not be up to date so counting buildings may not be possible. Le 15 avril 2020 à 11:36, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 if we are talking about relatively long periods of time Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
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, For what I have observed, small facilities sheltering refugee (for instance: refugee centers, accommodation center, care and hosting center, church) are not exactly what we can call refugee site. the difference, beyond the number of building, number of population or square meter, is quite obvious. Is it really necessary to set a precise rule ? I would rather suggest to share some example (like the ones mentioned above) in order to help contributors to decide if it rather an amenity=refugee_site or a social_facility=shelter. Regards, Manon Le 16 avril 2020 à 02:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 + social_facility=shelter is not correct. If it is to be done on area then specify the number of square meters rather than the number of buildings??? Buildings can be a of different sizes and capacities. An area could be more consistent as to the number of people. Imagery may not be up to date so counting buildings may not be possible. Le 15 avril 2020 à 11:36, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 if we are talking about relatively long periods of time Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 organisations who don't publicly share population information. Small refugee sites are in general single structure quite easily distinguishable from a classic refugee camp. Regards, Manon Le 15 avril 2020 à 11:42, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : sent from a phone On 15. Apr 2020, at 10:17, Manon Viou < m_v...@cartong.org> 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 buildings) and single structure large is a very relative concept, and counting “buildings or structures is not suitable to distinguish them (you can have 1 person living in a building, or thousands). If we’re to set a kind of threshold I’d rather expect counting people or maybe families/households. Cheers Martin Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 < dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 if we are talking about relatively long periods of time Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 than 5 buildings) and single structure
I invite you to have a look again at the proposal page :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location_2
Regards,
Manon
Le 15 avril 2020 à 01:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
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 stated in the wiki for social_facility=shelter so there will be some uncertainty as to where teh different lies.
Possibly the 'area' can be used? A social_facility=shelter could from the wording be considered a single structure? The 'amenity=refugee_site' could be stipulated as many structures i.e. mare than 3?
On 14/4/20 5:41 pm, Manon Viou wrote:
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 changes, we have to restart the RFC period?
We will restart RFC period if needed, let me know ! we haven’t received much comments on the latest proposal modifications, please let us know if this works for you or if amendments have to be done (
Proposed features/Refugee Site Location 2)
Have a great day,
Manon
Le 11 avril 2020 à 00:03, Warin
<61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
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 regarding how to best tag places sheltering refugee and/or internally displace persons. Thank you to the contributors who help finding a solution to have a consistent tagging in place for refugee location.
We are now suggesting to use the tag
amenity=refugee_site
The tag can be used alternatively on nodes or on areas:
If the extent of the site is difficult to identify (proximity to other villages, suburban area, etc.) it is recommended to use a node.
If the extent of the site can be clearly identified from the imagery or field data collection, it is recommended to use an area. Please note this extent does not have to match the official boundary of a camp (which doesn’t necessarily coincide to its physical limitations), as defined by government and specialized agencies, for which a dedicated tag can be used.
Both approaches can be completed by mapping the landuse=residential of the area and if appropriate a tag place (place=neighbourhood, place=suburb, place=village) can be added in the area of the refugee site.
Please have a look at this new proposal and share your comments quickly if you have any.
We will close RFC period soon.
Best regards,
Manon
Manon Viou
Manon Viou
Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps
m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839
Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 changes, we have to restart the RFC period? We will restart RFC period if needed, let me know ! we haven’t received much comments on the latest proposal modifications, please let us know if this works for you or if amendments have to be done ( Proposed features/Refugee Site Location 2) Have a great day, Manon Le 11 avril 2020 à 00:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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 regarding how to best tag places sheltering refugee and/or internally displace persons. Thank you to the contributors who help finding a solution to have a consistent tagging in place for refugee location. We are now suggesting to use the tag amenity=refugee_site The tag can be used alternatively on nodes or on areas: If the extent of the site is difficult to identify (proximity to other villages, suburban area, etc.) it is recommended to use a node. If the extent of the site can be clearly identified from the imagery or field data collection, it is recommended to use an area. Please note this extent does not have to match the official boundary of a camp (which doesn’t necessarily coincide to its physical limitations), as defined by government and specialized agencies, for which a dedicated tag can be used. Both approaches can be completed by mapping the landuse=residential of the area and if appropriate a tag place (place=neighbourhood, place=suburb, place=village) can be added in the area of the refugee site. Please have a look at this new proposal and share your comments quickly if you have any. We will close RFC period soon. Best regards, Manon Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[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 have a consistent tagging in place for refugee location. We are now suggesting to use the tag amenity=refugee_site The tag can be used alternatively on nodes or on areas: If the extent of the site is difficult to identify (proximity to other villages, suburban area, etc.) it is recommended to use a node. If the extent of the site can be clearly identified from the imagery or field data collection, it is recommended to use an area. Please note this extent does not have to match the official boundary of a camp (which doesn’t necessarily coincide to its physical limitations), as defined by government and specialized agencies, for which a dedicated tag can be used. Both approaches can be completed by mapping the landuse=residential of the area and if appropriate a tag place (place=neighbourhood, place=suburb, place=village) can be added in the area of the refugee site. Please have a look at this new proposal and share your comments quickly if you have any. We will close RFC period soon. Best regards, Manon Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[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 node or a polygon main top-level key. And it’s true we have this constraint of being able to map the refugee site with either node or polygon (Polygon being preferable when possible, but sometimes it’s impossible to delimit clearly the exact area.)
I will try to resume the options we have left:
First, it’s agreed that the distinction between large and small (less than 5 buildings) refugee site is necessary.
For small refugee site, the use of the existing
Amenity=social_facility
+ social_facility=shelter
+ social_facility:for= "">
Does not seem to be a problem
For large refugee site we still have different options
Option 1: The key refugee_site=yes is added to a place tag
Place = neighbourhood/suburb/village/town
+ refugee_site=yes
+ refugee_site:XX=XX
-> but if I understand well, it’s not possible to tag a polygon with the tag place? if so this option is not relevant to map refugee_site as polygon.
also it not so easy to identify if the refugee site should be map as a neighbourhood or a suburb or a village or a town. And as Jorieke said, it’s seems complicated to apply this to all context as she illustrated very well.
Option 2: The key refugee_site=yes is added to a landuse tag
Landuse = residential
+ refugee_site=yes
+ refugee_site:XX=XX
-> But if I understand correctly, the use of landuse=residential is not always adapted to the refugee site (landuse=residential area, ideally, should only include areas that are primarily residential). Also it would be wrong to create a new residential area to delimit a refugee site already inside a larger residential area. Thus this option seems a bit problematic.
QUESTION : Oukasz was wondering if the tag refugee_site=yes does necessarily have to be associated with place or landuse? And if we could have refugee_site=yes without any other tags ? in this case the limits cited above would no longer be constraining. but if I understand you Joseph, this will be a problem for the rendering ?
Option 3: use an existing main top-level key (from the listed options shared by Joseph)
My preference as Joseph and Oukasz would be for the
Amenity option, as it can apply as well as a node or a polygon, and fit better with the option for small refugee site.
Amenity=refugee_site
+ refugee_site:XX=XX
QUESTION: I still have 2 questions. With this option could we still proposed the secondary tags refugee_site:XX=XX (for instance refugee_site:status=formal)? As those secondary tag are very important too as mentioned in the talk page and because the diversity of refugee_site is such that it’s important to be able to detail the characteristics of it.
Do we also have to add “refugee_site=yes” or it’s not necessary?
About rendering: for sure it’s good to take it into account, but I think it’s not a priority, the most important is to ensure a consistency in the way to map refugee site in OSM and to facilitate data extraction and data maintenance.
I have a more
practical question, as the proposition change a lot, what is best, create a new proposed feature page “refugee Site Location 3” or can I change the “refugee Site Location 2” page ?
Thank you for your participation
Have a great day,
Manon
Manon Viou
Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps
m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839
Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[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 want to recap our objectives. Objectives : - develop a general set of tags which satisfy all the tagging requirements of the many colors and flavors of refugee sites which exist in the world. - develop tags which allow one to describe the features of the refugee site element, such as the "operator" (eg.UNHCR) , the type of population (refugee_only/internally_displaced), if the site is formal or informal, the refugee population, etc .. - develop tags which allow easy refugee site data extraction from the OpenStreetMap database using Overpass by anyone who wants to display refugee sites on a map. We welcome all constructive suggestions which help meet these goals. If anyone has any suggestions for improvements of the objectives, we welcome those too. State of current discussions: In our second feature proposal we first tried to better defend the use of the key:place, but it seems that a majority of people are opposed to the use of it. We have recently received two suggestions which we have combined below in a manner which we believe could meet the stated objectives : Key refugee_site for large facilities The key refugee_site=yes is added to a place tag. place=neighbourhood/suburb/village/town + landuse=residential + refugee_site=yes. The tag refugee_site=yes will allows to easily add secondary optional information to be able to details the typology of the camps and other valuable information like: + refugee_site:for = ""> + refugee_site:operator = UNHCR/Red Cross/etc. + refugee_site:duration = permanent/temporary + refugee_site:population = 500,000 + refugee_site:structure=shelters/tents/multifunctional/mixed + refugee_site:status=formal/informal Key Amenity=social_facility for small facilities [a majority agreed that social_facility is not appropriate for large site] For small facilities (less than 5 buildings) also sheltering refugee (for instance: refugee centers, accommodation center, care and hosting center), that are not exactly what we can call refugee site, use the existing tag: amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter + social_facility:for= ""> Thank you for your consideration, Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[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 30-01-2020 to 17-03-2020. It was then rejected by a narrow margin on the final day of voting. We have since tried to answer to the concerns and comments received, and to adapt and simplify the proposed tag to map refugee site location. We would like to discuss this tag with all interested people again during the Request For Comment phase, open until Friday, April 3rd. Thank you ! Please visit the new feature proposal wiki page here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location_2 Best regards, Manon Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting – Refugee site location
Dear all, The proposed feature for refugee site location was posted for comment on January 30 th. During February we have received several valuable comments. Thank you for your feedbacks! Your participation allowed us to improve our proposal in order to map refugee site location. We would like now to start the Request for Voting, Please find below the proposal which is being put to vote : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location#Tagging This ends on 2020-02-17 Regards, Manon, Manon Viou Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps m_v...@cartong.org | manon.viou +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | +33 (0)7 83889839 Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[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 been several attempts to improve the referencing of refugee camps in OSM but they never succeeded in finalizing a full proposal. Humanitarian organizations working with refugees and other displaced populations are willing to open some of their data to OpenStreetMap for wider and sustainable dissemination, but a common framework aligned with OpenStreetMap standards is necessary. Since many individuals and organizations already contribute to OpenStreetMap refugee site mapping efforts, it would benefit everyone to agree on a clear and consistent tagging schema for refugee sites. 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 : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location Thank you for your consideration, And please feel free to comment, preferably directly on the wiki ! Kind regards, Manon ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
