Once again, thanks everybody for your thoughts & comments! This is great, please keep them coming!
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree, and this can be easily fixed by changing the key to describe what > we are actually specifying: "What military service branch is using this > feature?" > > So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key. > Yep, after thinking about it overnight, I agree with you, so have changed the wording from base= to military_service=. On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 04:15, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, it also assumes that every country's military forces are neatly > grouped into these categories. The Chinese military is particularly > complex - the Chinese navy and air force are part of the army. > True, but I think that tagging a PLAN base as =navy, & a PLAAF base as =air_force would be fine (especially as we "can't" map in China!) > Some countries have domestic police forces that are part of the > military. > I think that Police forces are a completely separate kettle of fish, that can be looked at at a later date:-) Saudi Arabia, for example, has a separate air force and air defense force > organzied as separate services, the latter being carved out of the army in > the 1980s; tagging both as military_service=air_force would not be quite > right. > No, I'd go AD as =army Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air > fields[2]. Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would > not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base. > > To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with their > function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner. For > the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like: > > name=Wheeler Army Airfield > landuse=military > military=base > military_service=army > military_function=air > operator=United States Army > > I went with military_function over military_component in this example. > "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function" > is probably better understood by mappers. > > military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space, > law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization > in different countries. > > Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility > to combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a > more accurate tagging. In addition, from a data consumer, there is a > difference between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of > the military air bases". > May also make things a bit awkward? eg Holsworthy Barracks that I think I mentioned earlier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474902706#map=14/-33.9772/150.9641, is an Army base, that has infantry here, artillery ther, armour across that side, engineers over the back, commandos down in the bush, together with an Army Aviation airfield. What do you call it in one simple word? Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
