> QUESTION : Oukasz was wondering if the tag refugee_site=yes does necessarily > have to be associated with place or landuse?
As mentioned, it would be fine to use a new "key" like "refugee_site" for a feature that is only mapped as nodes, but if it is going to be used on areas it's important to use a well-known, established key. It's not just important for rendering, but also for routing and search applications, which also need to know if a closed way is representing an area or not. > QUESTION: IWith this option [amenity=refugee_site] could we still proposed > the secondary tags refugee_site:XX=XX (for instance > refugee_site:status=formal)? Yes. > Do we also have to add “refugee_site=yes” or it’s not necessary? No, if the tag is "amenity=refugee_site", there is no need to add it. -- Joseph Eisenberg On 4/6/20, Manon Viou <m_v...@cartong.org> wrote: > 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= internally_displaced/refugee > 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 > > [image: CartONG- Humanitarian mapping and information management] > > Manon Viou > > Coordinatrice projet Missing Maps > > [image: Email:] m_v...@cartong.org | [image: Skype:] manon.viou > [image: Phone:] +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 | [image: Mobile:] +33 (0)7 83889839 > > [image: Address:] Chambéry, France - Lon: 05°55'24''N | Lat: 45°30'20''E _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
