Proposed features/Avalanche-transceiver

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Avalanche transceiver
Proposal status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Babouche Verte
Applies to: node,area
Definition: This aims to tag properly avalanche transceiver training zone and avalanche transceiver checkpoint
Drafted on: 2021-04-28
RFC start: 2021-10-17
Vote start: 2021-11-14
Vote end: 2021-11-28
Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 11 votes for, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Proposal

Checkpoint for avalanche transceivers

It is proposed to create a tag to map two different object linked with avalanche transceiver (AT for the rest of the page), also know as Avalanche Victime Detector (AVD), also known as avalanche beacon. An AT is a small electronic device a skier (ski touring, backcountry, off-road, etc) or a snowmobile user has under his clothes, in "emission" (aka "transmitting") mode. If the skier is taken by an avalanche, the others members of his group turn their AT in "search" (or "receive") mode and it helps finding your friend alive under the snow. An AT is one the three basic emergency tools every backcountry skier have. The two others is an avalanche probe (to precisely search for your friend under the snow once you have an approximate position thanks to the AT) and shovel (to pull out your friend from the snow). You have to train often to be able, in case of emergency, to behave fast and save your friend. That's why many resort (at least in Europe, I don't know for other places) have created AT training zone. It's a place where you can easily bury an AT (in emission mode) and train to use your AT (in search mode) to find it. Those places are shown on resort map (search for example for "DVA parc" in Chamonix's ski map). They are all free access, no fees to go in. Some of them are "automatic" which means there are already few AT burried under the snow and you have to find them, some are manual (you have to burry them yourself, and then find them).

The second things to map with this key is avalanche transceiver checkpoint. It is a fixed installation that detect your AT when it's on "emission" mode and then tell you if it works well. It's most of the time put on official resort map, as you can see it on the "les deux Alpes" ski map. They are most of the time at the entrance of well-known backcountry, or at the arrival of major lifts.

Rationale

Before skiing or snowmobiling off roads, it can be usefull to know where is the closest AT checkpoint to check if your AT works well.

For training zone, the utility of mapping the place where you can train to save your friend's life seems obvious ! :)

Tagging

It would create a new value to the amenity key : amenity=avalanche_transceiver to be combined with one of the following :

Tag Applies to Discussion
avalanche_transceiver=training node,area for the AT training zone
avalanche_transceiver=checkpoint node for the AT checkpoint

There would be these optional tags :

Tag Applies to Discussion
ele=* both if usefull and relevant, for both training and checkpoint
automated=yes/no training to tell if the AT training zone is automatic or manual
indoor=yes/no checkpoint for AT checkpoint in arrival of lift, to tell if the checkpoint is inside or outside the building
operator=* both if usefull and relevant, for both training and checkpoint
ref=* both if usefull and relevant, for both training and checkpoint


It would be useless to use the tag fee=* as all the AT training zones and checkpoints are free.

Examples

Example of a training zone : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/879207687

Example of a checkpoint : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8179179558

Rendering

It may have a rendering only for specifics usecases, like opensnowmap.

Features/Pages affected

It would add a new possible value for amenity key.

External discussions

Comments

Voting

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output you type Description
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~ Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.
Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.


Please comment on the discussion page.

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I mapped a transceiver checker once under the do as you like doctrine, I'd happily remap that as amenity=avalanche_transceiver_checkpoint. I will not use the proposed tagging though. In my view, these are two different amenities, not two types of the same amenity. --Hungerburg (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I am a bit surprised by two level tagging. Why not just amenity=avalanche_transceiver_checkpoint amenity=avalanche_transceiver_training? --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Both are related to transceivers. ---- Kovposch (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Futur3r (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Babouche Verte (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- I think it's a usefull information to have BrieucP (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Wetterauer (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Fanfouer (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- having a way to tag this is better than not; but I agree with Mateusz, two new amenity keys seems cleaner; a checkpoint and a training area seem more different than similar. JesseFW (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dubs120 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- AlephNull (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. With the comment: "Before skiing or snowmobiling off roads" should be changed to "Before traveling in avalanche terrain". In addition to skiing or snowmobiling, someone could be snowshoeing or snowboarding. Also, there are many roads in avalanche terrain. --Bradrh (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)