Refreshed proposal - Emergency=disaster response

Thank you. I think the proposal could use some better pictures, especially of objects (e.g. buildings) that would actually get this tag.

A picture of a truck, or two men with helmets inspecting a piece of concrete, doesn’t help as much, because we don’t map those :slight_smile:

1 Like

I added some pictures and described the situation for Germany in a bit more detail, see here. Is it now better/easyer to understand?

I think these pictures help you to get an idea of what the organisation does. Do they or are they just confusing?

Can someone help adding some pictures for the Australian SES? As I don’t have detailed knowlege about them I can’t realy add so much about them.

Done! :grinning:

As always, though, finding photos we can use is an issue :thinking:

1 Like

I asked some guestions in this post, that where not realy answered yet.

How exactly does this RFC-thing work? Would it be wise to start the RFC or is it too early?

You are supposed to open any new proposals to RFC (Request For Conversation, I think?) so as to let mappers know that you are putting forward a proposal, & get their comments / questions / suggestions / complaints. You are then expected to answer said questions & explain when necessary, & probably make amendments to the proposal based on them.

RFC is to stay open for “at least” 2 weeks, then the proposal is moved to “voting” for at least another 2 weeks, to see if it is approved by the majority of mappers. However, most proposals only get in the order of 20 votes out of a few million OSM mappers!

So as to avoid complaints that nobody knew about the proposal, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to post an RFC message, both here & on the tagging mailing list, with links back to this thread as “external discussions”.

I am not realy sure about the exact border between drafting a proposal and requesting comments. As of now we use the comments here to refine the draft.

From my understanding we de facto already started the request for comments. Since the basics of the proposal have been written into the draft, I changed the status to proposed. To comunicate the existence of the proposal I …

  • … created a new topic:
    [RFC] Feature Proposal - emergency=disaster_response
  • … sent an email to the tagging mailing list
  • … addad an update about the proposal status to some wiki discussion pages (“The RFC for the proposal emergency=disaster_response started. Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page”). I added it to the …
    • … English discussion of amenity=emergency_service. If you speak Russian, Ukrainian or Japanese adding a translation to the corresponding discussion pages would be great.
    • … German and English discussion of emergency_service=technical.
    • … English discussion of emergency=ses_station. If you speak Czech or Spanish adding a translation to the corresponding discussion pages would be grat.

Do you see any other places where this information should be published?


No, I think you’ve covered it all.

Would it be possible to move the past discussion on the talk page, which is probably now outdated and detached from the content of the proposal page, to an “archive” where the old, already processed ones are in?

This would sharpen the focus on new, relevant topics in my opinion.

I am not sure what you mean exactly. Do you want to give the discussion page a cleanup by moving parts that are not in discussion any more to a different page?
I see the point that the discussion page in its current state could deter people from commenting. But is it usual to remove content from a discussion page?

Yes, I meant to do a clean up to make it more focused, but I don’t know how to achieve. Maybe a separate page or a “expandable section” if this is available in the wiki?

I added some colapsable sections for big tables. I also marked a lot of the sections as resolved as they got discussed and are now either not relevant anymore or they got adopted into the proposal. Do you think the discussion page is now better understandable?

Thanks, it’s still quite long, but it’s much better now.
I was just worried that people who hadn’t been on the talk site before would be put off looking at it. But on the other hand, I guess people are used to it in OSM :slight_smile:

I added a link to the proposal to the discussion page of emergency=disaster_response, even though the page has basiclly no content at the moment.

I currently have a discussion with @Warin61 over at the talk page about when to use emergency=disaster_response. He/She threw the Volunteer Rescue Assosiation into discussion, an organisation that probably fits the proposal.
Now the question came out about when exactly to use emergency=disaster_response. So what is the minimum level of capabilaties a station has to offer to “deserve” this tag? And how do we want to deal with specialised stations, that maybe lack some general disaster response capabilatys in exchange for specialised capabilatys.
It would be great if some of you could join the discussion eighter here in the forum or on the wiki talk page.

1 Like

Without knowing anything about them beyond the name, yes, I would say that they would also be disaster-response, so covered by this tag. Have put it out in the Oz Discord thread for further input.

There are lots of organisations that support during disasters so I think its important to understand which ones are active DURING the disaster (response) and which ones commence POST the disaster (recovery). Is the intention of this proposal only for response? Some organisations will obviously have a role in both (ie Red Cross). Some organisations will also have a role in preparedness as well (pre disaster)

Some other Australian organisations - I suspect they are set up for preparedness, response and recovery - recovery only

NOTE - i have not read all 139 messages so this may have been covered previously.

1 Like

Hi tastrax and thank you for joining the discussion.

The definition we came up with is:

emergency=disaster_response applies to a station of a non-military organisation that has the main objective to help the civil population during and after natural or anthropogenic disasters by working in the affected area but does not have firefighting or medical service as their main competence. The place is used for storing and repairing equipment (hand tools, trucks, boats, safety gear, etc…), training the members (volunteers or paid ones) and doing administrative tasks. It is the place where the members start a mission after being alerted to an incident.

So we did not divide between “response” and “recovery”. “Preparedness” is something we did not include into the definition.
It is hard for me to think of a clear line between “response” and “recovery”. Lets say there are heavy rainfalls that cause a flooding. When is the disaster over? When the rain stops? When all water was pumped away from the city? When mobile generators are set up and running to temporarly replace the damaged power grid?

The idea was to keep it simple. With a tagging scheme like this:


every facility could be classified very detailed. But this tagging scheme is much more complex than just a single tag. And a top level tag for disaster response/recovery is as of now not existing.

Not really sure how you arrive at those distinctions. In the US, we have different type services based on locality. There is local and regional police which keep thing civil during an emergency. Normal emergency services such as fire fighting and medical care are able to quickly cover thier immediate areas. Starting with those closest to the exist network of fire stations and ambulance squads.

Beyond that, there are regional groups often with more specific skills who can lend a hand during larger disaster. These lsearch and rescue team with trained dog and other equipment based on local terrain.

In larger scale disasters, members of the affected state’s National Guard are actived. Its members are probably the closest analogy of a civil defense force. They are volunteers who receive regular training on specialized equipment and skills. All so that they are able them to support existing services often during emergencies. The only real difference is that they are technically a peace keeping force funded and commanded by thier state’s governor.

It appears that in the US, you don’t have the type of groups that this proposal is referring to?

& as such, should be tagged under military=

I disagree. The only real difference is that National Guard troops can be issued military level weapons if required. Most recently members of the states of VA, DE and MD were guarding the US capital as military police.

Most of the time they are called up during emergencies. Carrying out many of the same duties that your civilian defense forces perform. I would understand marking thier bases as military but don’t ignore them because of thier command structure and funding.