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 think there is meant some “tank barrier”, because it’s part of historic military fortification

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 was just trying to find a reason for this labelling. Of course, I don’t know if it’s a tank barrier or what the real reason is!
The Wiki “military=trench” is established in 2016 ( Revision history of "Tag:barrier=tank trap" - OpenStreetMap Wiki ).
The found objekts are mapped five years earlier in 2011 ( Way History: 136162689 | OpenStreetMap ). So the mapper did not know this tagging…

1 Like

That sounds like a possible explanation.

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.

1 Like

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”.