police=officesis not necessarily the same asoffice=.police=officescan be an office complex for the whole site.
the “police” key is populated with a mingle-mangle of orthogonal values, if I used one of them before I would now look for alternative tagging possibilities:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/police#values
the France-variation of the police tag seems the most logical, describe the type of police:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/police:FR#values
There’s possibly Tag:emergency=control_centre - OpenStreetMap Wiki for what’s described there. Currently it is described for emergency call dispatch, but that’s seems too restrictive, and not exactly the same. It forms a good question as this doesn’t suggest the need of a =control_centre for each emergency service.
It’s still not logical, as police:FR= doesn’t describe the type of =police station. Is it a jurisdiction or subdivision headquarters, or local station? Most glaringly, police posts viz kouban from Japan are not full-sized police stations. Ignoring the issue of different jurisdiction and organizations, military= now is a feature, with military_service= as an attribute for what force it is.
Ok, that is surprising for me. The THW does some training in the local stations but also in other places. Typical options are:
disaster_response=base)disaster_response=training_area)disaster_response=academy)If the Australian SES does not have anything beside training with local units all of this is not necessary for it. As long as we only know about the German THW as an organisation with these facilitys there is no sense in discussing a world wide tagging scheme for them. As long as no one with knowlege of other organisations joins this disussion I think we should limit the proposal to emergency=disaster_response for local stations of disaster resonse organisations. office=government + government=emergency for administrative offices already exists, as I just learned. Stuff like disaster_response=base/academy/training_area/depot/... or a different scheme to store this information could be part of a seperate proposal after emergency=disaster_response got approved and adopted.
As my post with the reworked definition got 2 thumbs up I changed the definition in the proposal to:
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 or paid ones) and doing administrational tasks. It is the place where the members start a mission after getting alarmed.
If I understand the posts and reactions of @Kovoschiz and @Fizzie41 right you two also favor the plan to limit this proposal to emergency=disaster_response and move the discussion about a more detailed tagging scheme like disaster_response=depot/academy/warehouse/... or something similar to a later point. I just added a new section “Future plans” to the proposal that describes exactly this.
If anyone thinks that a more detailed tagging scheme than just emergency=disaster_response for the local stations is necessary feel free to say so at any time.
This
together with your reference to
emergency_service=
makes me think that that would be a great way of completely re-doing everything concerning emergency services!
Bring everything together into one scheme rather than the current mix of amenity / building / emergency:
landuse=emergency_service + emergency_service=police / fire / ambulance / rescue + police=station + station=“general_duties” / detectives / SWAT
Well & truly s discussion for a later time though!
If Croatian case at least, “Civilna zaštita” (literally translated “Civil protection”) is a government organization structure under the umbrella of “Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova” (Ministry of internal affairs - which also controls the police force, personal IDs/passports issuance etc).
The organization does not just volunteer manpower during a disaster, but has its own organization, equipment, etc. for disaster relief, is that correct?
Yes, in Croatian case. For example, during 2020 earthquakes in Croatia, they provided food, drink, power and temporary shelters (tents) as well as semi-permanent shelters (mobile houses, still used years after in some cases). They also provide logistics and material and people for flood prevention, are responsible for manning early warning & alerting systems, handle 112 emergency phone call number, etc. They even have a task force dedicated for marking and removing minefields (even 30+ years after the war…) in civilian areas.
What if we take a different approach:
How about start with a disaster. Disasters can be simple auto accident or multiple car plie-up. A factory fire or mountain flood. Then try to catalog each of the services that might required to save lifes and minimize damage to property.
It shouldn’t matter whether the organization is volunteer, professional or military run. Mainly because victims of a disaster don’t care who provides them assurance. Such as which fire department rescues those stuck in a burning building. And whether a army medic, a county EMS or local doctor aids the injured.
We can start by filling in missing tags and replace those that are too specific. My aim to create a cohesive collection of tags, someone should be query a regions capabilities.
@IanH Was that in regard to my comment re emergency_service=*?
I think that should be split off into it’s own discussion rather than complicate matters here.
Hi @Matija_Nalis and thank you for your input about an aditional organisation.
If I understand you right, the “Civilna zastita” is an organisation that has some similaritys to the Australian SES and the German THW. Does the Civilna zastita have facilitys that match the definition below? If not, what aspects are not fullfilled?
emergency=disaster_response applies 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 or paid ones) and doing administrational tasks. It is the place where the members start a mission after getting alarmed.
Hi Ian and thanks for joining the discussion,
I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say but I am trying to answer as well as possible. If I totally missunderstood what you meant please correct me.
As of now, there is consensus that volunteer and professional organisations are both included in the use of emergency=disaster_response. My thoughts about excluding military organisations is the following:
If we used emergency=disaster_response for every organisation that acts in disasters we would need to include all the army/marine/air force facilitys into this tag. Because a war is an antoprogenic disaster and the military tries to protect the civil public from the opposing military. But the military is very different from civil defense/protection organisations in what they do.
It was already meantioned that the current situation for tagging facilitys of emergency organisations is not perfect at all. But as cleaning this up is a very big and ambitious project I think that this idea should be seperatd from the current proposal. Adding a more specific tagging scheme for disaster response organisations is already a “Future plan” but to keep it simple it is not part of this proposal. I also like @Fizzie41’s draft for a detailed and consistend taggning scheme, but as he/she said, this is something for a seperate discussion.
Even though some detailes of the already discussed aspects may change due to feedback from the latest posters, I would like to already introduce a new topic. The last section that currently exists in the proposal but is without content is Rendering.
Before we discuss how we want to render a disaster-response-station we first should discuss if disaster-response-stations should be rendered and if this should be part of this proposal. So my question is:
Schould any kind of rendering of emergency=disater_response on the standard map be part of this proposal?
pro:
con:
emergency=disaster_response has basicly no use at this point. We have no empiric proof that this tag works at all. The discussion about if and how to render it is more sensfull once the tag proofs that it works as intended.What do you think abut this topic? Which pro/con arguments can you think of?
Now started at Initial discussion: Possible new way of mapping emergency service areas & locations
Probably way too early for that level of detail, although I did consider mentioning possible rendering in ^ discussion! A simple option there would be to re-use the existing military landuse rendering, but with the cross-hatching going the other direction i.e. \ not /.
I agree. I don’t know if we can already call it “consensus” if 2 people say the same. As no one seems to say that emergency=disaster_response needs to be rendered asap I added the following to the proposal page:
Rendering
As there is currently basically no use of emergency=disaster_response, it is too early to consider rendering it on osm-carto. Once the tag gets used and adopted rendering can be considdered in a discussion.
If anyone opposes to this plan feel free to say so.
When I wrote the proposal for crossing:continuous I didn’t write much about rendering because
As a non-binding documentation change, the outcome of a proposal vote does not compel a change in tools which use and generate OSM data, such as the standard tile layer renderings or editor presets. An approved proposal will not be automatically rendered or added to presets; this is at the discretion of the developers and maintainers of those tools.
So you could make a rendering suggestion but it’s probably not a good idea to talk about any one renderer specifically. (Practically, what goes on OSM carto is up to the maintainers, see highway=busway)
Thank you for that input. After considering what you wrote I totaly agree. I now changed 2 pieces of the proposal:
A request to implement the editing/adding of emergency=disaster_response to the iD-Editor will be created.
As there is basically no use of emergency=disaster_response at the moment, it is too early to consider rendering it. Once the tag gets used and adopted by the community, a request for rendering it may get discussed.
Do you think these formulations are ok?
One thing that needs consideration is how do we want to deal with the currently existing elements tagged with emergency=ses_station, amenity=emergency_service or emergency_service=technical. In total there are about 1500 of these objects. As of now, there is consensus that these tags should be deprecated. But that just means that we will edit the documentation in the wiki. Untill now we did not discuss manual or (semi-)automated mass edits. I think we should defenatly include a clear statemeant about this topic in the proposal. If we want to propose to do (semi-) automated or mechanical edits, we would need to make sure that we obey the Automated Edits code of conduct.
I already did some analysis of the situation. I think at least about half the objects could be cleaned up quite easily without manually checking them. But before going into to much detail about the “how” I would like to first discuss the “if”.
My opinion is, that we should do some mechanical edits to clean up as many objects as possible while ensuring that no false matches get edited too. For the rest we could maybe make a maproulette chalenge, but I am not sure about this.
What do you think about this? Should all edits be done by a human? Should everything be edited automatically? Should we filter the objects to only edit some of them automatically and some of them manually? What do you think about using maproulette?
My problem is that we are talking about disaster resonse. Disasters are handled by people in an office at the appropriate agency level. That means that we are talking about a bunch regional offices. Mark those building with emergency=disaster_response to indicate that office directs resources during a disaster and your are done.
What wee are trying to do is catalog resources used to actually carry out that response. The information about where and who owns it will become apparent as we tag existing locations with thier capabilities.
Those could be a mountain rescue yeam, a kennel of human or cadaver dogs to find and recove lost campers. We need to identify the resource and decide which emergency situations apply.
So when it comes to boat capsizing off the coast of New England, someone in-charge can figure out who is available to rescue those on board. That person can quickly find all the equipment, services and personnel. They can quickly decide what combination of resources might be required to find and safety return those people to shore. It could be involve the local volunteer boat owners trained in open-ocean rescue, local fire fighters, state police or helicopter squad from the nearby Coast Guard station working in concert to make it a safe and successful recovery.
Mark those building with emergency=disaster_response to indicate that office directs resources during a disaster and your are done.
+1, this seems reasonable
No, we are not. As of now, we have the following definition in the proposal:
emergency=disaster_response applies 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 or paid ones) and doing administrational tasks. It is the place where the members start a mission after getting alarmed.
So the proposal is to establish emergency=disaster_response for duty stations of disaster-response/civil protection organisations, not for offices.
A problem we already came accross is that “disaster response”, “civil protection”, “civil defense” and so on are hard to translate into different languages because disaster response is handled different in different countrys.
At some point there was the idea to additionally introduce emergency=disaster_office or something similar to map administrative places. But I thinkt that would be something for a seperate proposal.
If I understand you right you are now talking about a tagging scheme for stations fitting the definition. So you propose to establish a tagging scheme that enables stroing detailed data about the capabilatys of a station. I like this idea but I think we should in the first step focus on finding a tagging scheme for stations of disaster response organisations.