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.
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:
A world wide unified tagging scheme is a feature that is relevant for a lot of people.
The stations can be used for orientation. At least for the German THW there are often road signs guiding to the stations and the stations themselve often have some signs too.
In case of a disaster the stations may be the place to get help.
con:
A rendered feature that is for most people not relevant on a daily baisis would make the map confusing.
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.
There were already thoughts about unifying the tagging scheme of different facilitys (academys/warehouses/training areas) of different similar organisations (police/fire fighters/water rescue/…). The “If?” and “How?” of the rendering of all these organisations could be a combined in one proposal at a later point.
What do you think abut this topic? Which pro/con arguments can you think of?
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 editorpresets. 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)
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.
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.
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.
Why exclude military resources? Soliders and national guard personnel are often have many skills useful in a disaster. The Coast Guard probably spends more time rescuing people than maritime law enforcement.
Most of those words are overly broad concepts. Ironicly many of those names were created during the world wars. They reduced the strain on fighting militaries by training civilian to do more mundane tasks on the homefront.
That why I suggested starting with categorizeing tjings like equipment and the disasters they are designed to “fight”. You’re more likely discover more meaning generic terms that everyone can agree on.
I agree with Fizzie. If we included military bases into the proposal, why stop there? If we wanted to tag every facility, that may be helpfull in a disaster, we would need to add emergency=disaster_response to:
Construction companys owning excavators/cranes
Plumbers/electritions who can replace broken pipes and cables
Hardware stores that sell tools
fire fighters, police, ambulance stations
…
If you want to query the map for disaster-response capabilaties of an area it is not as easy as searching for emergency=disaster_response. Depending on what exactly you want to find you need to consider including facilitys like the military or fire stations into your search. That can easily be done by something like this in overpass turbo:
[out:json][timeout:25];
(
nwr["emergency"="disaster_response"]({{bbox}});
nwr["amenity"="fire_station"]({{bbox}});
nwr["landuse"="military"]({{bbox}});
);
out geom;
If I understand you right you would like to introduce a very detailed tagging scheme. So something like
facility_has_big_water_pumps=yes + water_pumps_flowrate=20000l/min
for places with big water pumps
facility_has_big_electric_generators=yes + electric_generators_power=200kVA
for places with big generators
facility_has_boats=yes
for places with boats
Of course these tags are not formulated well. They just describe the general idea I understand from your posts. A detailed tagging scheme that stores all this data about exact capabilatys would maybe be nice to have, but I would realy like to divide this from this proposal to keep it simple. And even if we had the detailed tagging scheme we would still need a main tag to group all of the objects (emergency=disaster_response).
The relevant guideline is duck tagging. Basically, if something looks like disaster response and its purpose is to facilitate disaster response, tag it as disaster response. Other permanent facilities can in many cases be mapped as separate objects with their own tags.
I didn’t know what duck tagging is but I like the concept. Thank you for linking to it!
Essentially, you tag according to the “duck test” - if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, call it a duck.
The military does not quack like a disaster_response, because helping in disasters is only sometimes their duty. The quack of the military is to be prepared for war. The quack of a disaster-response-station is to send people to disasters to help in the effected area.
How do others see this? Do you agree or does the military quack like disaster_response?
Yes, I think you’ve been talking at cross purposes. The proposal is for a tag for sites of organisations whose primary purpose is disaster response. This isn’t true for the military. And as @Casey_boy pointed out early in this thread, such organisations may not exist in some countries at all. Where they do, emergency=disaster_response could be the primary tag for their facilities.
What @IanH is suggesting is more like a tag that could be added to all organisations that play a role in disaster response, the same way seamark tags might be added to existing objects that play a role in marine navigation. If that was the goal, it would make sense to include the military, but it probably isn’t the goal.
On first glance, a tag with an information like plays_a_role_in_disaster_response=yes would be nice as an easy way to find relevant objects near you in case of an emergency but it would also be very difficult to tell what is relevant. That topic is a completly different concept that would need a lot of thoughts and discussion to work it out. In the proposal there already is a section “Future plans” describing the idea of discussing a more detailed tagging scheme after emergency=disaster_response gets approved and adopted.
