Mechanical edit proposal to apply emergency=disaster_response to stations of the German THW

Recently a wiki proposal for tagging of disater response organisations was accepted, see here. The wiki page can be found here. As of now, there already is a big amount of data for the Germen Technisches Hilfswerk (THW) in OSM. The “Ortsverbände” (local stations) of the Technisches Hilfswerk (THW) now need to be changed according to the new scheme. There are nearly 700 of them, so a mass edit is desirable.

They are currently tagged as amenity=emergency_service or emergency_service=technical. Sometimes one of these tags is used, sometimes both. There is de facto no difference in the meaning of these two tags when they are applied to an object of the German THW. The proposal aimed to apply emergency=disaster_reponse to all local stations of the German THW as a replacement for the two tags meantined before. There are 668 “Ortsverbände” of the THW, see here.

I propose a mass edit of these stations. My proposal includes all objects, that are found with the following overpass-turbo query:

  nwr["amenity"="emergency_service"]["operator"~"(Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk (THW)|Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk)"]["name"~"THW Ortsverband"]["ref:thw"~"O[A-Za-z0-9]{3}"]["thw:rb"]["thw:lv"];
  nwr["emergency_service"="technical"]["operator"~"(Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk (THW)|Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk)"]["name"~"THW Ortsverband"]["ref:thw"~"O[A-Za-z0-9]{3}"]["thw:rb"]["thw:lv"];
out geom;
out count;

The query uses these filters:

  • amenity=emergency_service/emergency_service=technical to find relevant facilitys
  • operator~(Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk (THW)|Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk) to make sure only facilitys of the right operator are edited
  • name~THW Ortsverband, ref:thw~O[A-Za-z0-9]{3} to only find the right kind of facility. The THW also runs facilitys that are only administrative and should not get emergency=disaster_response.
  • thw:rb=*, thw:lv=* these tags are de facto used to implement the administrative structure of the THW into OSM. Filtering for them makes mismatches less probably.

Here is a map showing the search result:

The query finds 664 Objects, all located in Germany. That is a good match to the 668 theoretically existing stations. Here is one randomly chosen example station that would get edited:

I sent messages to potential data consumers I know of to make sure that they are aware of the new tagging scheme, see here.

I am also considering more changes. In my eyes, the often used abbroviation (“THW”) in the operator=* tag should not be there. ref:thw=* should probably be ref=*. To make it easyer I would like to split the discussion about such possible edits into a seperate thread at a later point in time.

I propose to remove amenity=emergency_service and emergency_service=technical from the above meantined OSM-objects and add emergency=disaster_response to them.

Does anyone see a problem with this mechanical edit?

I think I have identified the 4 missing instances. 3 of them have already been edited by someone else and one had been set to disused:amenity=* and disused:emergency_service=*. I just fixed that. For me this mechanical edit is fine.

Thanks for the research. If we have a perfect match between the number ob objects in OSM and the theoretical official number to be expected according to the websie, that is even better.

What do others think? Should the mechanical edit be executed?

I documented the proposed edit in the wiki:
Are there any other oppinions on this topic? Is it ok if I execute the described mechanical edit?

  • I approve the proposed mechanical edit
  • I oppose the proposed mechanical edit
0 voters

As no one was opposing here eighter via comment nor via vote I executed the edit with changeset 146793335.

I don’t oppose your mass edit (neither do I approve it), but in general I believe, next time, you should wait a little more, and 4 backing votes are not sufficient to demonstrate broad support (although with more time they would be sufficient to demonstrate that there isn’t any interest).

1 Like

I was thinking about how much time is adequate too. Is there a general rule (of thumb) for this?
In this case I thought a short time was ok. The general idea of this tagging scheme has consens because of the freshly approved proposal:
I know that a wiki-proposal does not give permission for a mass edit. That is why I started this thread.

How much time would you suggest between discussion and execution of the mass edit?