On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 07:41, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
