Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 is doing this and wants that.
>>
>
>
>
> Mateusz, this is a quite detailed list, can you explain which other countries 
> are included in "etc"? I do not know about Israel, Russia or North Korea, but 
> I am pretty sure that mapping in China is illegal.
>
Yes, mapping China without explicit permission breaks Chinese law.
But it is not against OSM rules to be within Chinese jurisdiction and map China.

The same for mapping military bases in Russia or Israel.

'can you explain which other countries are included in "etc"' - I heard about 
other countries
that have similar laws but I have not verified this claims.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 detailed list, can you explain which other
countries are included in "etc"? I do not know about Israel, Russia or
North Korea, but I am pretty sure that mapping in China is illegal.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 and noticed it only recently,
>> and only in a new proposal.
>>
>> Anyone may edit Wiki and many things are present there because noone
>> noticed what is written somewhere.
>>
>>> Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?
>>>
>> I am not against noting legal restrictions in some countries that may be 
>> dangerous for some mappers. But I am against implying that it is 
>> against OSM rules to map in China or map military bases in Russia/Israel/etc
>> or that it is unwanted.
>>
>
> The suggestion was made to me privately that this matter be raised via the 
> Legals list to get an official opinion or ruling, & if it is agreed that it 
> is a requirement, hopefully also an agreed wording for a "warning".
>
> I agree that that is probably the best option, but also consider that it 
> could be left until after the proposal is accepted or not, &, once again, it 
> would be done as part of a clean-up of the military pages.
>

At least I will vote against proposal that includes
"As always, if it is illegal in your country to map military establishments, 
please do not do so!".

I will certainly not demand breaking such law, or expect people to risk it. 
Especially
as such law is often present in countries where going against government is
especially risky.

But implying that it is also against OSM rules is not acceptable to me.

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.

Though making people aware about risks is a  good idea.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 may edit Wiki and many things are present there because noone
> noticed what is written somewhere.
>
> Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?
>
> I am not against noting legal restrictions in some countries that may be
> dangerous for some mappers. But I am against implying that it is
> against OSM rules to map in China or map military bases in
> Russia/Israel/etc
> or that it is unwanted.
>

The suggestion was made to me privately that this matter be raised via the
Legals list to get an official opinion or ruling, & if it is agreed that it
is a requirement, hopefully also an agreed wording for a "warning".

I agree that that is probably the best option, but also consider that it
could be left until after the proposal is accepted or not, &, once again,
it would be done as part of a clean-up of the military pages.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 seeing things 
>> in country A and when you’re in country B you add them to OpenStreetMap 
>> (from memory), which is legal in country B but not in country A. You might 
>> be able to do it and still be arrested when going back to country A.
>>  
>>  People also said in the past we should adhere to European law because 
>> otherwise our dataset can not be used in the EU (e.g. with respect to 
>> copyright and fair use). I am not sure if after the Brexit this will still 
>> be the OpenStreetMap-Foundation policy, or whether they focus completely on 
>> British law, but I am sure that Chinese law has not been deemed relevant by 
>> past and present osmf boards.
>>
>
> I agree it's incredibly confusing, & a legal minefield (as well as 
> potentially a real one!), but if it's an issue, why haven't the "Warnings" 
> been deleted from the various military pages prior to this?
>
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 may edit Wiki and many things are present there because noone
noticed what is written somewhere.

> Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?
>
I am not against noting legal restrictions in some countries that may be 
dangerous for some mappers. But I am against implying that it is 
against OSM rules to map in China or map military bases in Russia/Israel/etc
or that it is unwanted.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 memory), which is legal in country B but not in country A. You might
> be able to do it and still be arrested when going back to country A.
>
> People also said in the past we should adhere to European law because
> otherwise our dataset can not be used in the EU (e.g. with respect to
> copyright and fair use). I am not sure if after the Brexit this will still
> be the OpenStreetMap-Foundation policy, or whether they focus completely on
> British law, but I am sure that Chinese law has not been deemed relevant by
> past and present osmf boards.
>

I agree it's incredibly confusing, & a legal minefield (as well as
potentially a real one!), but if it's an issue, why haven't the "Warnings"
been deleted from the various military pages prior to this?

Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 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 
memory), which is legal in country B but not in country A. You might be able to 
do it and still be arrested when going back to country A.

People also said in the past we should adhere to European law because otherwise 
our dataset can not be used in the EU (e.g. with respect to copyright and fair 
use). I am not sure if after the Brexit this will still be the 
OpenStreetMap-Foundation policy, or whether they focus completely on British 
law, but I am sure that Chinese law has not been deemed relevant by past and 
present osmf boards.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 course, it's apparently
illegal to map anything in China.

I would hate for somebody to be potentially arrested on spying / espionage
charges for doing what we suggested :-(

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 {{Key|military}} or landuse
=military
.

I did mention earlier that the military page needs a clean-up. When we do
that, it would be an ideal time to decide on a standard "warning" template
to go on all related pages.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Paul Allen]

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 thing on that page, but it's the first that
fits
how I used it. :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Paul Allen]

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 share this
> particular concern,


Apart from the wiki page, of course.


> one swallow does not make a summer. ;-)
>

I don't see many sharing your viewpoint, either.  :p

Anyway, one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 not make a summer. ;-)

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

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.
>>
>
>  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 they are (usually) no longer a military area, so to my mind
> shouldn't be mapped as landuse=military?
>
> I did earlier raise the question of how to deal with historical sites such
> as the ones you pointed out?
>
> "Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist
> attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263,
> https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but
> are not now military areas, so how should we tag them?
> museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or
> ignore all reference to "military"?"
>
> We could also include "historic=fort"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dfort but that also
> says "a military fort: a stand-alone defensive structure which differs from
> a castle in that there is no permanent residence. There may have been
> temporary housing for the crew", which I have some issues with?
>
> (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't
> necessarily make it historic! :-))
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 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 they are (usually) no longer a military area, so to my mind
shouldn't be mapped as landuse=military?

I did earlier raise the question of how to deal with historical sites such
as the ones you pointed out?

"Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist
attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263,
https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but
are not now military areas, so how should we tag them?
museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or
ignore all reference to "military"?"

We could also include "historic=fort"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dfort but that also says
"a military fort: a stand-alone defensive structure which differs from a
castle in that there is no permanent residence. There may have been
temporary housing for the crew", which I have some issues with?

(& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't necessarily
make it historic! :-))

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 least, but there are military bases at
various sites around the world that have been at that spot for hundreds of
years!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 

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 & mapping them 
> in a war zone!)


 when the term is military „base“ I would guess it will always be intended for 
more than a few weeks? Even if the label is „temporary“ it probably means years 
and not days?

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for those edits, Joseph.

They make things a little neater!

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 and war zones etc.
>

Yes, quite correct, but a USAF base, regardless of whether it is located in
the US, Germany or Afghanistan, will still be tagged as landuse=military +
military=base + military_service=air_force + operator=United States Air
Force.

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 & mapping them
in a war zone!)

Their nature may be very different, e.g. used to provide replenishment,
> used as relais station for communications (including “combat“ action like
> murdering people through drone strikes), used as hospital area for injured
> soldiers, used as command stations, used as a relatively safe space in a
> combat area, ...
>

True, & there was discussion re further defining which units, or branch of
service (armour, Artillery, Military Police etc) the base houses, but I
think that may be better refined at a later date?

There’s also nowadays the situation where private contractors may be in the
> same base as the military forces.
> Operation military kids may have some information:
> https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/private-military-companies/
>
> Do you see PMC as landuse=military?
>

Hmmm, an interesting one that I hadn't thought of?

Depending on their particular role & location, I think you would find that
civilian contractors assisting the military (eg contractors to the US Army
in Iraq or Afghanistan) would be housed inside an Army base, rather than in
a compound by themselves.

Contractors inside a country eg civilian guards manning the entry gates
into a US Army Base inside America, aren't housed on the Base itself, but
would work from their own company premises, which would possibly be an
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dsecurity?

The awkward one comes in when you consider those forces which used to be
called mercenaries eg
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/
?

Although my comment above would certainly apply about actually locating &
mapping them in a conflict zone, I'd guess that yes, they would also be
classed under landuse=military + military=base? Happy to have input on that
from anybody else with a point of view!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 be 
> used by different branches of Military Service eg Army, Air Force. However, 
> they are different to a military=training_area, as that is where field 
> training, as opposed to classroom, takes place. 



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 
and war zones etc.

Their nature may be very different, e.g. used to provide replenishment, used as 
relais station for communications (including “combat“ action like murdering 
people through drone strikes), used as hospital area for injured soldiers, used 
as command stations, used as a relatively safe space in a combat area, ...

There’s also nowadays the situation where private contractors may be in the 
same base as the military forces.
Operation military kids may have some information: 
https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/private-military-companies/

Do you see PMC as landuse=military? 

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 different branches of Military Service eg Army, Air Force. However,
they are different to a military=training_area, as that is where field
training, as opposed to classroom, takes place.

Yes, landuse=military will be a required tag, together with military=base

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 12:10, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> 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?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:44 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:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
> >
> >
> > This proposal is also getting close to voting.
> >
> > Precis:
> >
> > deprecate:
> >
> > military=naval_base
> > protect_class=25
> >
> > modify:
> >
> > military=barracks
> >
> > add:
> >
> > military=base
> > military_service=xxx
> >
> >
> > There have been lot's of fantastic suggestions & comments made so far,
> so if you have any more, please add them either here or on the talk page.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:44 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:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>
>
> This proposal is also getting close to voting.
>
> Precis:
>
> deprecate:
>
> military=naval_base
> protect_class=25
>
> modify:
>
> military=barracks
>
> add:
>
> military=base
> military_service=xxx
>
>
> There have been lot's of fantastic suggestions & comments made so far, so
if you have any more, please add them either here or on the talk page.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 =naval_base
   
   - protect_class =
   25
   


*modify*:

   - military =barracks
   

*add*:

   - military =base
   

   - military_service
   

   =xxx
   



There have been lot's of fantastic suggestions & comments made so far, so
if you have any more, please add them either here or on the talk page.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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, albeit in miniscule numbers, is there
any need to go through the full RFC & vote procedure, or can I just create
pages for them?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

> 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 (except, of course, for those countries where they *are*
> actually part of the military!)?
>

I would tend to agree - cadet groups are not a military service like an
army or navy.


> One other thing I've realised from this exercise is that the "Military"
> page needs further cleaning-up, but let's get this one out of the way
> first! :-)
>

Excellent - I look forward to your effort and enthusiasm trying to sort
this all out!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 "Police" &
"Military".

I can tell you that the US Marines belong to the US Marine Corps, which
comes under the overall command of the US Navy. The British Royal Marines,
however, are directly under command of the Royal Navy, with no intervening
command level.

No idea on the other two‽

I agree we will probably find use for both, a specific operator tag and a
> more generic attempt to put the things into boxes.
>

Yes, I agree.

In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same
for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ?

Another couple of issues I've spotted as I've been looking at some of the
current listings for military=barracks.

Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist
attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263,
https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but
are not now military areas, so how should we tag them?
museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or
ignore all reference to "military"?

The other one is Cadet units eg Army / Navy / Air Force Cadets? I don't
know about other countries, but in Australia at least, while they are named
"Australian Army Cadets", they are classified as a youth group only, & not
linked to the military forces in any way. So what should we tag their depot
/ training building as?

There used to be a tag for club+youth, but this was scrubbed in favour of
amenity =community_centre
 +
community_centre:for
=juvenile

The problem I have with that is that these buildings are not open to the
general public, or for use by other community groups, so they wouldn't meet
the usual criteria.

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 (except, of course, for those countries where they *are*
actually part of the military!)?

One other thing I've realised from this exercise is that the "Military"
page needs further cleaning-up, but let's get this one out of the way
first! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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. 


yes, but if the Chinese Navy does not fit what you expect from a navy it is 
more misleading than helpful. Which military service are the Italian 
Carabinieri? The US Marines? 

What about the Guardia di Finanza?

I agree we will probably find use for both, a specific operator tag and a more 
generic attempt to put the things into boxes.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 needing to translate an operator=* tag for
every language and every country to make it usable.

While some militaries have unusual divisions, the presence of an army, air
force and navy is quite common for large countries, and it's fine if the
list of values is a little longer to fit in the silly ones like
"military_service=space_force".

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 2:06 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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 in the wiki for standardized
> names of these structures in all countries, without having to decide which
> “box” they have to be put in.
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 in 
airplanes.


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 these structures in all countries, without having to decide which
> “box” they have to be put in.
>

I can't see that it would hurt having both options? After all, you don't
have to enter both if you don't know the info, but as Brian pointed out,
it's more data that people may want to see.

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, but
they tag the operator as the Chinese Air Force, which doesn't actually
exist - it's the People's Liberation Army Air Force!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 in the wiki for standardized names of these 
structures in all countries, without having to decide which “box” they have to 
be put in.

Cheers Martin 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
:-)

>
>
>> I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
>> is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
>> whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
>> non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
>> about identifying things too accurately‽
>>
>
> I think it would be fine to have a way to tag such unit identifiers,
> though there can be multiple tenant units within a base, so this is
> possibly beyond the scope of base tagging.
>

Yes, that may be another step after this gets through (assuming it does, &
I've got say that, so far at least, nobody seems particularly upset with
the idea)

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
>> base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
>> what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?
>>
>
> I do not think that military_service=yes or =unknown should be included in
> the proposal.  For the "=unknown" situation, this is accomplished by simply
> omitting the tag, and for the "=yes" situation, this is redundant with the
> military=* tag.
>

In the How to Map section of the proposal, I had worded it that
military_service=xxx was mandatory. A comment was then made "that [it]
prevents the mapping of military bases where the service is unknown", so I
included =yes / unknown for those cases (which should be rare). At the
time, I was thinking about the ubiquitous building=yes & highway=yes, when
you can't work out any further details beyond "It's there". Easier solution
will be just to remove the "mandatory" requirement!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
> 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
> office=military & also office+government (together with building=public?),
> so would become landuse=military + military=base +
> military_service=joint_forces + function/branch="command" - sound good?
>

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.


> I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
> is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
> whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
> non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
> about identifying things too accurately‽
>

I think it would be fine to have a way to tag such unit identifiers, though
there can be multiple tenant units within a base, so this is possibly
beyond the scope of base tagging.

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
> base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
> what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?
>

I do not think that military_service=yes or =unknown should be included in
the proposal.  For the "=unknown" situation, this is accomplished by simply
omitting the tag, and for the "=yes" situation, this is redundant with the
military=* tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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.
>>>
>>> To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with their
>>> function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
>>> the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:
>>>
>>> name=Wheeler Army Airfield
>>> landuse=military
>>> military=base
>>> military_service=army
>>> military_function=air
>>> operator=United States Army
>>>
>>> I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
>>>  "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
>>> is probably better understood by mappers.
>>>
>>> military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
>>> law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
>>> in different countries.
>>>
>>
Yes, possibly _function, although this is where _branch could also come in?

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
office=military & also office+government (together with building=public?),
so would become landuse=military + military=base +
military_service=joint_forces + function/branch="command" - sound good?

I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
about identifying things too accurately‽

Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility to
>>> combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a more
>>> accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a difference
>>> between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of the military
>>> air bases".
>>>
>>
Yes, I'm now seeing what you mean, especially after relating it to
Holsworthy, but still trying to visualise how it would work, especially for
somewhere like that, that has both ground forces & also aviation on the
same base? Another prime example would be
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6145740#map=10/34.4681/-116.2189.

As a general rule, I think just "army base" is sufficient for a
> hypothetical multi-function base occupied by an army service. However, I
> note from Wikipedia's discussion of that base:
>
> "Holsworthy Barracks (ICAO: YSHW) is an Australian Army military barracks
> [...] is part of the Holsworthy military reserve, which is 22,000-hectare
> (54,000-acre) training area and artillery range for the Australian Army,
> [...] Holsworthy Military Airport is also located in the reserve."
>
> It calls out "Holsworthy Barracks", "Holsworthy military reserve", and
> "Holsworthy Military Airport" as separate places.  Wikipedia seems to think
> these are different things, and it seems like we should have tagging that
> can describe the differences.  "Holsworthy Military Airport" sounds like a
> perfect example of an army base that is performing air component
> functions.
>

Yep, agree with you entirely! Rather than just being tagged
landuse=military + military=barracks as it is now, the whole area should be
landuse=military, with the built-up area being military=base, the airfield
military=airfield, & the bush military=training_area + military=range +
military=danger_area! - can we mark all three on one area?

Don't take this as criticism, as I fully support the proposed
> military_service tag.
>

Don't worry, I'm not! This is all great stuff, as it helps to make sure we
get it right from the start, rather than realising several years later that
we really should have ... :-( Got to say, though, that going through the
existing 9000, I'm thinking probably mostly incorrect, military=barracks is
going to be a *bbbiiiggg* job! - MapRoulette challenge perhaps?

But -- I can already envision the mis-tagging that may occur the first time
> a mapper encounters a military base that "quacks like a cow" and goes to
> the wiki and there isn't an obvious way to tag these differences beyond the
> "name" tag.  We have an opportunity here to make the tagging more fully
> descriptive to indicate both the service that operates a base as well as
> the overall military purpose for bases that are specialized.
>

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?

Thanks

Graeme
__

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
offices, & a military=danger_area that's not also landuse_military would be
fairly rare, but can happen in ex-firing ranges.

Going through these one by one

e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315105891,
>

OK, so it definitely *was* a military area, but not sure if it still is, or
if it's now been disposed of? The last info I can find on it (sorry,
couldn't copy the link but please Google " Phoenix Military Reservation
Fire Control Area") is dated 2011, & makes reference to 5 yearly reviews,
but nothing since then. The last change on the map was made by somebody
called *ZeLoneWolf*, so if we can track him down, he may be able to help?
:-)

The area is apparently "only" contaminated, so I don't think it should be
called a military danger area, which relates to firing / bombing ranges,
but it would be a prime candidate for Brian's new "Hazard" scheme

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26165183 (danger_area)
>

Is an active military firing range, so should also be landuse=military +
military=range. The current note should be a description so that map users
can see it.


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151330951
>

Yep, military recruiting office in a commercial area.

Appears to be Army only, rather than all forces, so military=office +
office=recruiting + military_service=army

, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485899442 (office)
>

Interesting one!

Currently building=commercial + military=office + office=government

Can't open the listed URL due to a 405 error?, but Wiki (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_Exchange_System) says that
CANEX is the Canadian Forces Exchange System, similar to the US PX, &
British NAAFI.

We don't have an Australian equivalent, but my understanding is that these
are a combination department store & supermarket, reserved for use by
military personnel & their families? I wouldn't have said it was actually
either a military or a government office?

Just looking, & here's an American version
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5762588456, which I'm guessing is the
same thing, & it's listed as a shop=supermarket only.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
>
> 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 their
>> function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
>> the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:
>>
>> name=Wheeler Army Airfield
>> landuse=military
>> military=base
>> military_service=army
>> military_function=air
>> operator=United States Army
>>
>> I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
>>  "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
>> is probably better understood by mappers.
>>
>> military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
>> law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
>> in different countries.
>>
>> Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility
>> to combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a
>> more accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a
>> difference between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of
>> the military air bases".
>>
>
> May also make things a bit awkward? eg Holsworthy Barracks that I think I
> mentioned earlier
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474902706#map=14/-33.9772/150.9641, is
> an Army base, that has infantry here, artillery ther, armour across that
> side, engineers over the back, commandos down in the bush, together with an
> Army Aviation airfield. What do you call it in one simple word?
>

As a general rule, I think just "army base" is sufficient for a
hypothetical multi-function base occupied by an army service. However, I
note from Wikipedia's discussion of that base:

"Holsworthy Barracks (ICAO: YSHW) is an Australian Army military barracks
[...] is part of the Holsworthy military reserve, which is 22,000-hectare
(54,000-acre) training area and artillery range for the Australian Army,
[...] Holsworthy Military Airport is also located in the reserve."

It calls out "Holsworthy Barracks", "Holsworthy military reserve", and
"Holsworthy Military Airport" as separate places.  Wikipedia seems to think
these are different things, and it seems like we should have tagging that
can describe the differences.  "Holsworthy Military Airport" sounds like a
perfect example of an army base that is performing air component
functions.

>From a data consumer perspective, if I wanted to calculate the number of
hectares that Australia's military dedicates to aviation, it would be
desirable to have a way to do that by querying for both air force bases as
well as bases operated by other services that perform an air warfare or
aviation function.  Or perhaps I wish to generate detailed breakdowns of
how military land is allocated based on both service and function.

Don't take this as criticism, as I fully support the proposed
military_service tag.  But -- I can already envision the mis-tagging that
may occur the first time a mapper encounters a military base that "quacks
like a cow" and goes to the wiki and there isn't an obvious way to tag
these differences beyond the "name" tag.  We have an opportunity here to
make the tagging more fully descriptive to indicate both the service that
operates a base as well as the overall military purpose for bases that are
specialized.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 using this
> feature?"
>
> So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key.
>

Yep, after thinking about it overnight, I agree with you, so have changed
the wording from base= to military_service=.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 04:15, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> However, it also assumes that every country's military forces are neatly
> grouped into these categories.  The Chinese military is particularly
> complex - the Chinese navy and air force are part of the army.
>

True, but I think that tagging a PLAN base as =navy, & a PLAAF base as
=air_force would be fine (especially as we "can't" map in China!)


>   Some countries have domestic police forces that are part of the
> military.
>

I think that Police forces are a completely separate kettle of fish, that
can be looked at at a later date:-)

Saudi Arabia, for example, has a separate air force and air defense force
> organzied as separate services, the latter being carved out of the army in
> the 1980s; tagging both as military_service=air_force would not be quite
> right.
>

No, I'd go AD as =army

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 their
> function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
> the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:
>
> name=Wheeler Army Airfield
> landuse=military
> military=base
> military_service=army
> military_function=air
> operator=United States Army
>
> I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
>  "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
> is probably better understood by mappers.
>
> military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
> law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
> in different countries.
>
> Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility
> to combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a
> more accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a
> difference between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of
> the military air bases".
>

May also make things a bit awkward? eg Holsworthy Barracks that I think I
mentioned earlier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474902706#map=14/-33.9772/150.9641, is an
Army base, that has infantry here, artillery ther, armour across that side,
engineers over the back, commandos down in the bush, together with an Army
Aviation airfield. What do you call it in one simple word?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

> 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 only the military services in the UK are armed forces,
> police in
> the US are generally armed.  So there would be confusion if we used UK
> terminology here.
>

There is no confusion in the US, the term "armed forces" specifically means
the military, and would never ever be confused with the local police, or
your armed neighbor Billy Bob.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Paul Allen]

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 certain of the dialect of English spoken by that page's
author.  When it
states the official names are "The British Armed Forces" and "Her Majesty's
Armed
Forces" that is probably correct.  Referring to them as "military services"
may be
influenced by the USAian dialect.

>
> 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 only the military services in the UK are armed forces,
police in
the US are generally armed.  So there would be confusion if we used UK
terminology here.


> Disclaimer: I don't speak the British dialect of English (aka "Her
> Majesty's English?" :-) )
>

Lizzie Windsor speaks with a Birmingham accent.  An old Birmingham accent
that differs
greatly from the current one, but a Birmingham accent.  It's a relic of the
time when
Birmingham and the surrounding area was responsible for much of the
country's
wealth.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

"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 navy and air force are part of the army.  Some
countries have domestic police forces that are part of the military.  Saudi
Arabia, for example, has a separate air force and air defense force
organzied as separate services, the latter being carved out of the army in
the 1980s; tagging both as military_service=air_force would not be quite
right.

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 their
function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:

name=Wheeler Army Airfield
landuse=military
military=base
military_service=army
military_function=air
operator=United States Army

I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
 "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
is probably better understood by mappers.

military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
in different countries.

Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility to
combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a more
accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a difference
between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of the military
air bases".


[1]
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389755/20141208-JDP_0_01_Ed_5_UK_Defence_Doctrine.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler_Army_Airfield

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:08 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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"?
>
> 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.
>
> Disclaimer: I don't speak the British dialect of English (aka "Her
> Majesty's English?" :-) )
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 3:55 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 07:28, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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 Armed Forces."  More formally, "Her Majesty's Armed Forces."
>  See
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces  Not a suitable term
> for use
> > outside of the UK.  "Armed Forces" would be applicable outside the UK but
> > I'm not sure how well it would be understood by, say, the US.  The
> Wikipedia
> > article says that British Armed Forces are the military services in the
> UK,
> > so military_service might be the best option.  OTOH, the sidebar of
> > that article refers to the Navy, Army and Air Force as service branches,
> > so military_branch or military_service_branch would probably work.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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
"military service" sometimes too, and mention the overall "British Armed
Services", "Her Majesty's Naval Service", etc.

Disclaimer: I don't speak the British dialect of English (aka "Her
Majesty's English?" :-) )

-- Joseph Eisenberg


On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 3:55 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> 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 Armed Forces."  More formally, "Her Majesty's Armed Forces."  See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces  Not a suitable term
for use
> outside of the UK.  "Armed Forces" would be applicable outside the UK but
> I'm not sure how well it would be understood by, say, the US.  The
Wikipedia
> article says that British Armed Forces are the military services in the
UK,
> so military_service might be the best option.  OTOH, the sidebar of
> that article refers to the Navy, Army and Air Force as service branches,
> so military_branch or military_service_branch would probably work.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Paul Allen]

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 Armed Forces."  More formally, "Her Majesty's Armed Forces."  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces  Not a suitable term for
use
outside of the UK.  "Armed Forces" would be applicable outside the UK but
I'm not sure how well it would be understood by, say, the US.  The Wikipedia
article says that British Armed Forces are the military services in the UK,
so military_service might be the best option.  OTOH, the sidebar of
that article refers to the Navy, Army and Air Force as service branches,
so military_branch or military_service_branch would probably work.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>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 to describe what
we are actually specifying: "What military service branch is using this
feature?"

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?

This would also solve the issue of using base=army + military=office or
base=marines + military=danger_area, which would otherwise seem odd.

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

e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315105891,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26165183 (danger_area)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151330951,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485899442 (office)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:36 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
> 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 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
>>
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 any sort of 
> military feature, including military=office, military=danger_area, 
> military=barracks, and so on. 


There’s also this project for a different but somehow possibly related topic:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intelligence

like embassies, also military bases might house intelligence facilities which 
are known and could be tagged.

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 branch for any sort of
> military feature, including military=office, military=danger_area
> ,
> military=barracks, and so on.
>

Can't see that that should be a major problem?

=offices are usually located inside a Base, which is covered as base=xxx,
or possibly "joint". You do have Recruiting Centres that are often found in
commercial areas, but they are usually for all forces, not individual ones.
If it's an "Army" only Recruiting office, you could go military=office +
office=recruiting + recruiting=army; or it could be covered by either
name=Army Recruiting Centre, or military=office + office=army?

There wouldn't usually be a need to specify who a =danger_area "belongs"
to, as they are almost always located inside =training_areas, which are
then named eg Beecroft Naval Weapons Range, but once again, training /
danger_area=navy should work.

As for =barracks. I did mention that it appears that =barracks is
frequently (almost always?) used incorrectly. It's currently defined as
"Buildings where soldiers live & work", but that is wrong. Barracks are
living & sleeping quarters only, not the entire Base area, so the =barracks
should be located inside military=base + base=xxx.

& as I've just mentioned on the Talk page, I'm starting to partially agree
with the "Don't map anything military" theory! I still think it's fine to
map the area & say that this is Edwards Air Force Base, but I'm wondering
if we really need to, or should, then map interior details to say that this
building is the Officers Mess, these are the Enlisted Quarters & this is
the Armoury?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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, military=danger_area
,
military=barracks, and so on.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:22 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Following on from comments made in regard to deprecating both emergency= &
> amenity=coast_guard & replacing them with military=coast_guard:
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 02:01, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a
>> general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military
>> branch associated with a military base.  For example, we have
>> military=naval_base, but no equivalent tagging for army, air force,
>> amphibious, (dare I say space force?) bases.  In places where the coast
>> guard IS part of the military, tagging it under landuse=military +
>> military=* is appropriate.  However, I also support the need to tag coast
>> guard areas in places where they are considered non-military and thus
>> landuse=military would not be appropriate.
>>
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:18, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> yes, a documented way to distinguish "finer" details are missing not only
>> for military branches, the same holds true for police branches and other
>> law enforcement and border / tax etc. control.
>>
>
> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>
> Please have a read & comment either here or on the discussion page.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 controlled
at lower than Federal level?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

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:
>> 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 please!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 please!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Following on from comments made in regard to deprecating both emergency= &
amenity=coast_guard & replacing them with military=coast_guard:

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 02:01, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a
> general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military
> branch associated with a military base.  For example, we have
> military=naval_base, but no equivalent tagging for army, air force,
> amphibious, (dare I say space force?) bases.  In places where the coast
> guard IS part of the military, tagging it under landuse=military +
> military=* is appropriate.  However, I also support the need to tag coast
> guard areas in places where they are considered non-military and thus
> landuse=military would not be appropriate.
>

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:18, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> yes, a documented way to distinguish "finer" details are missing not only
> for military branches, the same holds true for police branches and other
> law enforcement and border / tax etc. control.
>

I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases

Please have a read & comment either here or on the discussion page.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging