Osaako joku sanoa mikä juttu tämä on kun pk-seudulla n. puolet juoksuhaudoista on tagattu accident=trench ja toinen puolisko military=trench. Vain jälkimäiselle merkintätavalle löysin tukea wikin puolelta.
accident=trench-tagaystä ei maailmalla juurikaan muualla tapaa (pari yksittäistapausta Slovakian ja Romanian suunnalla) ja oli tuolla Miehikkälänkin suunnalla pari kohdetta, mutta ne jo korjasin military=trench’iksi kun arvelin niiden olevan virhetagitys. Sitä kautta oikeastaan vasta huomasinkin tämän pk-seudun poikkeavan tältä osin muusta maailmasta.
I’m sorry @pyram but I don’t quite understand your point. I just don’t see the connection between a trench and a tank barrier in this case. I think that’s two separate things. And why would this lead to using a tag that isn’t practically used anywhere else in the world?
I don’t believe that these fortifications are that unique. Besides there’s already a specific tag for tank barrier, eg. barrier=tank_trap.
I found this interesting stat enlightening this case a bit more. Seems like the usage of these tags has started at roughly the same time (2011-2012). The military=trench wiki has been established much later on as this tag has grown in popularity. The military-key has been far more popular than the accident-key, but on the other hand there hasn’t been any notable decrease in the number of “accident trenches” so there hasn’t obviously been any attempts to unify these taggings. I tried to find some historic discussion about the accident tagging on the old forum, but couldn’t find any. Personally I would prefer changing these locally used accident=trench taggings into military=trench unless somebody in the community strongly disagrees with me.
This has been an interesting thread, and I’m also leaning towards harmonizing the tagging as @houtari suggests above.
I do not have any strong disagreements with the plan, but it did occur to me that perhaps it could be argued that the military-key is inappropriate here. These trenches date back to the first world war (if not earlier) and have not seen military use since, nor are they dug in the turf of a current military installation. Of course the additional historic-key (or membership in such a relation) says as much too, but these ditches are not actually used as trenches. I’d imagine that military grounds might have ditches also used as trenches.
Good point. These surely have a historical aspect, both the ones created for WW1 and the ones created for WW2. Let’s hope they’ll remain as historic sites as well. Introducing the historic key would in general make it easier to locate all kinds of historic sites with one search query. This idea could maybe be introduced more widely as well. A quick estimate shows that roughly 20% of the European trenches have a historic key. I doubt that the remaining 80% are in “active use”.
Tiedoksi että olen nyt käynyt läpi pk-seudun accident=trench -kohteet ja yhtä lukuunottamatta (tätä) muuntanut ne military=trench:ksi. En lisännyt historical-tageja, mutta sellaisethan voi noihin lisätä helposti jälkikäteenkin. military-avaimen käyttöä näissä puoltaa mielestäni sekin että monissa muissakin kohteissahan toivotaan että alkuperäinen käyttötarkoitus näkyisi esim. koulurakennuksethan pitää tagata building=school -muotoon vaikkeivät ne enää olisi opetuskäytössä.
Kyllä! Näin minä ainakin tämän tulkitsen … "The most basic use is building=yes, but the value may be used to classify the type of building. Note that it may be not the same as the building’s current use (tagged using building:use=). For example, a hospital building that is abandoned or repurposed to be a marketplace is still a building=hospital, and to mark active hospitals amenity=hospital is used"*
Lähde : wiki building=*
Tuota periaatetta minä olen noudattanut mm. Kuhmon alueella jossa on nykyään 3 toimivaa koulua, mutta hieman yli 45 building=school’ia. En ole aina jaksanut lähteä selvittämään vanhan kyläkoulun nykykäyttöä, joten olen useimmin tyytynyt siihen että description-tagin takana olen kertonut että koulu on lopetettu.
I don’t tag them as military because these things are not military anymore. I mapped many World War II bunkers and trenches and never added military.
Usually a tank ditch I map as two opposing man_made=embankments.
A trench is barrier=ditch.
A bunker is building=bunker with ruins=yes.
An example of an anti-tank ditch is here.
Trenches and bunkers are here.
No, kai se sitten on oikein, kun noin neuvotaan tekemään. Pitää vaan ymmärtää, että toimivia kouluja ei pidä etsiä building=school -tagin perusteella, vaan amenity=school -tagillä Tag:amenity=school - OpenStreetMap Wiki. Onpa muuten mutkikas malli.
Hi! I do see that we have a different approach to mapping in this case. Thankfully you don’t use the accident=trench scheme that I’ve now just modified here in Finland.
I see some value in keeping the original purpose of the structure (military in this case) and I find similarities in these aspirations to the tagging of buildings where you’re (according to wiki) adviced to keep the original purpose as I noted in my previous post in finnish. I mean how else (tagging wise) would someone who’s interested in these historic sites be able to find them? OK! Some of them could be a part of a bigger fortification like relation or they might have some historic-tag to indicate this, but what about those who aren’t or havem’t?
Minä olen ehkä jo tuon periaatteen vahvemmin omaksunut, mutta tunnistan siinä kyllä muutamia etujakin. Rakennuksilla haettaessa tulee turhia duplikaatteja koska koulurakennuksiahan voi yhdellä koululla olla useampia, kun taas yhdellä ja samalla koululla harvemmin on useita amenity=school’eja. Lisäksi tämä käytäntö helpottaa paikallistamaan juurikin noita vanhoja kyläkouluja jos joku niiden kohtalosta ja sijainnista sattuu olemaan kinnostunut.
Yes, different mappers in the Netherlands use different tags. We don’t have a “scheme” yet . Some mappers use for example abandoned:military=bunker.
I for my part find it enough to use building=bunker.
You mean you want one tag that all these things have so that they can all be found with a query? That’s an interesting idea.
