Talk:Tag:bunker type=pillbox

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss Tag:bunker type=pillbox here:


Old vote

Comments before approval

  • Wouldn't this better be: military=bunker and abandoned=yes? -- Ulfl 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I can see from a UK point-of-view that historic=pillbox would be very useful as is; they are very, very distinctive part of the scenery and certainly historic. I am in two minds whether I would vote yes, as I've never seen them elsewhere (I travel/live mostly outside Europe). Would historic=fortification, name=pillbox (gun_emplacement, fort, peel_tower ...) suffice ? - more general for other situations yet could be rendered out as user Njd27 suggests. MikeCollinson 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There are thousands of these things in the UK (according to the Wikipedia article), so I think a special 'historic' value just for these would be worthwhile. I wouldn't object to a more generic one with an additional 'type=pillbox' (not 'name=' because I think that should be reserved for the name of a specific thing), but for something like 'historic=fortification' to work we would need a clear definition of what would be counted as one, and decide what other types of fortification should be labeled with a specific 'type' value. --Geoff 08:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • to mikecollinson's point: there are lots of these outside england, i've seen them around auckland, and a few near darwin, australia. i would prefer a more general tag that took into account different types of fortification Myfanwy 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You could render it with the word "pillbox", perhaps in a different font. -- Njd27 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me, there are lots of the things laying around surrey where I am Steve 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There are quite a few of these here in Belgium as well. We just tend to call them bunkers. Polyglot 08:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can also add tank traps like the siegfriedlinie --Rubke 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting record

(There are two proposals here, the simple proposal (historic=pillbox) and the alternate proposal (military=bunker; bunker_type=pillbox). Please indicate which you prefer, and if this is approved I'll just use the more popular one.)

  • I approve this, don't mind which of the alternatives --Geoff 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. --Hawke 18:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. --Rubke 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. -- MikeCollinson 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. are you going to suggest a list of sub-tags as well, pillbox being one? -- Myfanwy 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
no, the current proposal is just for one bunker_type value, but other people can use different values if they find different kinds of bunkers --Geoff 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. -- Ulfl 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. -- EsbenDamgaard 13:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this, and prefer the military=bunker method. -- Frank 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Voting closed on 2008-01-21.

Why WWII?

Keep in mind that bunkers were not only used in WWII. There are hundreds of them built for Civil Wars all over the World and so on. --Schumi4ever 16:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag chaining

With the naming of OSM tags in general I believe there's a convention to avoid using the word "type" (hugely generic word), and to instead go for a "tag chaining" approach. a=b & b=c It's a shame this tag doesn't follow that. It should have just been "bunker=pillbox". I'm mentioning this for future reference. I don't care enough to try to correct this old tag now -- Harry Wood 17:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)