I suggest a new value for the military tag. It's for arsenal of weapons and armament and equipment.
We in Switzerland distinguish between the "Zeughaus" (armory) and the "Armee Fahrzeug Park (AMP)" (army vehicle park). I think this tag can cover both types as they are sometimes the same. --Andy 18:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the same suggestion as the one above, but I'd like som kind of tag for supply storages. In Sweden we got lots of small military supply buildings on different places (such as out in the middle of a forest). Averater 11:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"please, please do not mark military areas"?
I added a military area some time ago and today when I check it was gone. What was left was a single node with the note "please, please do not mark military areas". Is this a new policy or something? // Liftarn 12:20, 19 August 2010 (BST)
- No, it's their opinion. It could be legally wise in some countries not to map them, if it could get the mapper arrested or prosecuted in that country. But it shouldn't be of any concern to other mappers. Alv 12:34, 19 August 2010 (BST)
- I did the mapping from Yahoo images so it's obviously not that secret and I'm not in that country either. If so, how can I find out who deleted the mapping I've done? // Liftarn 10:56, 23 August 2010 (BST)
- It's re-mapped now, but I guess this is the original way which got deleted by Mr Israel
- To find out this kind of thing, I had to use Potlatch version 1 (hover over the edit tab to get the old version), and I had to press 'U' to undelete elements (see Potlatch 1/Primer#Undoing mistakes). Another approach you can try, is to use the Data layer to view the history of objects without needing to enter an editor. That doesn't give access to deleted objects though.
- -- Harry Wood 15:34, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Thanks for the tip. It came in handy since it was deleted again. // Liftarn
There is a discussion on the forum 'Military areas in Israel (remove or not remove?)' which would be very relevant to this. I know there have also been discussions about mapping military bases elsewhere too e.g. in Russia (mailing list?) -- Harry Wood 15:37, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- I'm also opposed to suppressing all military areas completely. It's perfectly OK to draw and tag the border of these areas (even if there's no details about its name, or role, or about what is built in side and the function of every building or equipement there).
- Also because even military areas may have an acess possible for the general public, such as information points, an access for visitors with a possible parking, museums, memorials and cemeteries. The access is controled and secured, but not forbidden in that case (it may be open to the public only within defined hours, even without taking any rendez-vous).
- So landuse=military is perfectly admissible. Access restrictions will be tagged on the entry points, where they exist. And we'll be able to tag the public access for visitors, museums, memorials, cemeteries, chapels, points of information, and possibly some caserns. If the name of the army unit stationned there (such as "3e RIMA"), or of the zone (such as "Quartier Foch") is displayed to the public from outside, on a signage, it should be tagged too. This is not a military secret if it is voluntarily displayed by the army, and the army needs to display that to inform visitors, or candidates for recruitments, or for its relations with the bordering civilian public authorities and the local population.
- Verdy p 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that Israel may have its own national laws. In that case the Israelian laws should be respected for what is mapped in Israel. This should not affect other countries (and not even the areas occupied by the Israelian army which are not in its civilian juridiction, but just temporary places of military actions). Verdy p 09:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- If they are in military areas with restricted access, you should just map the administrative border of that area (so that it will appear in the map only as a greyed out zone without details inside, except just topographic details like sea, coasts, and elevated pikes or high antennas and towers visible from very far away out of the zone (and which could be still be used as geodetic points usable when navigating around this area). But most buildings, and roads or paths, or installed equipements should not be mapped at all, not described with extended tags or names showing what they are used for. Just stay outside of the zone, look at the publicly visible signalisation, and stop there: it's much enough to tag landuse=military, possibly with a name covering all that area (but the name is not necessary).
- In more restrictive countries, it would be enough to tag access=no without more details for that zone (this tag would include not just military areas, but also other dangerous industrial areas, some internal offices of civilian ministries or institutions, highly polluted/contaminated areas...).
- But elsewhere within demilitarized areas or in old fields of war (and probably too within military areas, if they are mappable), mine fields that have not been secured (there are many in Bosnia Herzegovina, in Vietnam, Laos...) are preferably to be tagged with another tag signaling the danger of death for visitors; they are possibly signaled but not always accurately on all accesses in rural areas.
- I really suggest not tagging mine fields as military, even if they were initially made by militaries (and most often abandonned there without control). Verdy p 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)