it is currently discussed on the tagging ml which tags to use for the objects in the title.
Examples
police shelter at an intersection
guard shelter at the entrance of a government building
it is currently discussed on the tagging ml which tags to use for the objects in the title.
Examples
police shelter at an intersection
guard shelter at the entrance of a government building
A similar question on the old help forum here has yielded a few suggestions but no firm consensus.
Maybe this would fit.
surveillance=public
surveillance:type=guard
In structure and function, I suppose such a building is similar to a building=gatehouse
, only that this word itself denominates a more narrow meaning. There doesnāt seem to be a word for the general meaning. Wikipedia calls them sentry boxes, so building=sentry_box
seems fine.
I would put them in man_made, like watchtowers and guard towers.
surveillance tags could be added as well.
I am not sure how this police booth is used (hardly ever seen someone inside), but the guard booth is for checking who enters the building.
Perhaps building=access_control
?
Iād prefer something like building=guard_shelter
Another dictionary suggested
gatekeeperās cabin
gatehouse
gatekeeperās shelter
2 posts were split to a new topic: Booths at the entrance to a park
What about building:use
=access_control
. This would allow the building type to independent from the fact that it provides access to the entrance.
Hi, everyone.
I often get confused about other peopleās use of tags.
I think that the āguard postā tag should be activated anew for a guard post that is not a prosperous building.
Until a new tag is agreed upon, I think the āamenity=securityā tag is appropriate for watchtowers and guard posts.
I think this should focus on the role, not the building.
I think āsurveillanceā should only be used for features for surveillance purposes.
However, this feature also serves several other functions, such as verifying ID or guiding.
Some people recommend āgatehouseā, but I think that gatehouse is only applicable to buildings that serve as both a gate and other roles.
I donāt think itās applicable when itās a simple building that doesnāt play any other roles.
(gatehouse = gate + buildings with different roles. A building that does not play other roles is not a āgatehouseā.)
Tag:building=gatehouse
Note that StreetComplete now offers to tag building=guardhouse
using this icon
See also #4374.
I have made some edits in the wiki to reflect this consensus around building=guardhouse.
However, just a few weeks after that page was created, Something B made an edit introducing a separate amenity=security_booth page, which seems pretty identical at first sight (down to using the same text and images). I have asked in the talk page for clarification.
On the one hand, it seems that these two tags should be merged (with one marked as a āpotential tagging mistakeā of the other?), but on the other hand, after exploring images in Wikimedia Commons a bit, Iām wondering if we should indeed make a distinction between sentry boxes, guard booths and guardhouses (in progressive order of size, structural stability, and āliveabilityā, for lack of a better term). The latter, in particular, seems to refer to a proper building where guards can be housed in the literal sense of the term, as opposed to a booth where they are stationed for the length of their shift. This seems to correspond to what Wikipedia says:
Guardhouses have historically been dormitories for sentries or guards, and places where sentries not posted to sentry posts wait āon callā.
Iām not sure if this distinction is relevant for OSM, but I suspect quite a bit of these structures may still exist even if they are not used for their original function, so it might be worth distinguishing between them. What do you guys think?
Iām not sure if this distinction is relevant for OSM, but I suspect quite a bit of these structures may still exist even if they are not used for their original function, so it might be worth distinguishing between them. What do you guys think?
yes, there will be many of them that are now used for a different purpose, and probably also many where guards are housed in the literal sense of the word
If I divide the facilities related to security, I think roughly as follows.
From what Iāve looked at, I think this concept is mixed up in OSM wiki right now.
Further to whatās elaborated above, 2 (in fact 3) things here are being mixed up here:
building=
. building=kiosk
etc is what I prefer more. Compared to =guardhouse
, there is still half as many =security_booth
, and a quarter for =booth
. Worse, =guardhouse
doesnāt actually explain the scale either. Is not useful for it to be used for everything from booths, to large checkpoints and security control centers (are those āguardhouseā too? Not obvious what it means). As exemplified by Wikipedia, File:Saint Michael's Castle Guardhouse.jpg - Wikipedia doesnāt look the same as a booth. It might not be used as such anymore.amenity=security
+ security=
has been drafted. Again, amenity=security_booth
unnecessarily requires the āboothā structure or scale of operation. This is not flexible, and doesnāt exactly explain what itās used for compared to the options in security=
.police=
might be used for non-regularly staffed ones. unlike eg koban in Japan. Rural or borders may have observation posts and bunkers, perhaps with surveillance equipment to maintain continuous oversight.Please pay attention, you are not allowed to do mass re-tagging without abiding by the automated edits CoC.
Complained: Changeset: 128995943 | OpenStreetMap
Others:
Changeset: 128995171 | OpenStreetMap
Changeset: 128994580 | OpenStreetMap
Changeset: 128993315 | OpenStreetMap
Changeset: 128992901 | OpenStreetMap
Youāre right. Iām sorry, and wonāt repeat the mistake. To be honest, I meant to experiment with smaller sets of changes, and when I fumbled that and made a larger-than-intended edit, I just went ahead and completed the changes, which in hindsight was foolish.
In any case, beyond the fact that it was done without following the recommendations, even I am second-guessing myself, as shown in my previous post in this thread. Happy to have those changes reverted until a firmer consensus is obtained.