I think I see what you mean. A facility owned by the police is not always an amenity=police. If it is an area owned by the police with warehouses to store police material it would be police=storage but not amenity=police. If we want to apply this scheme to emergency=disaster_response we would need to change the definition in the Proposal. That would be something like this (changes in italic)
emergency=disaster_responseapplies to a station of a not-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, …), training the members (volunteers and paid ones) and doing administrational tasks. It is the place where the members start a mission after getting alarmed
But with this change we do not realy have a method to map disaster response storage warehouses, schools/academys, training places and so on. Maybe a tagging scheme for them could be part of a seperate porposal at a later stage.
On the one hand I would like to have a tagging scheme to group all facilitys that deal directly (local stations) or indirectly (warehouses, academys, …) with disaster response. On the other hand these facilitys are quite different in what they do.
What do all of you think about changing the definition that way?