Proposed features/Military bases

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Military Bases
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: User:Fizzie41
Tagging: military=*
Applies to: nodearea
Definition: Bases of the various branches of Military services
Rendered as: Existing military=landuse hatched pink
Drafted on: 2020-12-07
RFC start: 2020-12-08
Vote start: 2020-01-02
Vote end: 2020-01-16

Proposal

To map the bases used by other branches of Military service eg Army, Air Force, Marines etc, in a similar manner to Naval Bases military=naval_base, two new tags are proposed. This proposal would:

  • Approve the new tag military=base to map any military base. A military base is a facility, directly owned and operated by or for the military or one of its branches, which houses military equipment and personnel and facilitates training and operations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base). This tag will replace military=naval_base.
  • Approve the new key military_service=army/navy/air_force/marines/... for the particular branch of service eg Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines etc.

The following tags will be deprecated:

The definition of the following tag will be modified:

  • military=barracks to be amended to read "Buildings where Military personnel live & sleep"

Rationale

The tag military=naval_base, to show Naval bases, has existed in OSM since 2008, but there is currently no way of showing the bases of any of the other branches of the various Military services eg Army, Air Force, Marines etc.

They are currently usually marked as landuse=military, frequently together with military=barracks, but there is no way of showing what branch of service any military area belongs to.

I am proposing two new levels of tag under landuse=military:

military=base for the area of each military establishment, together with

military_service=xxx for the particular branch of service e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Joint Forces etc. The same tagging would be used regardless of whether the base is for Regular, full-time forces, or part-time, volunteer Reserve forces, & would be designated for the largest service using any particular base i.e. an Air Force base that also houses a small Army detachment would be shown as military_service=air_force. This tagging would also be used for armed Coast Guards ie the military / para-military force intended for protection of a country's coastal waters against enemy military forces, as well as civil threats such as smugglers, terrorists etc. It would also apply to stand-alone military buildings such as recruitment offices.

As part of this proposal, the once proposed protect_class=25 for Military Areas will also be fully deprecated.

military=barracks. Currently, the military=barracks tag, which is used for a lot of military bases, is defined as "where soldiers live and work". However, this is incorrect, as the word "barracks" actually refers to living & sleeping quarters only, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks, so should be tagged on individual barracks buildings only, not the entire establishment. This proposal will also modify that tag to "Buildings where military personnel live and sleep".

In a number of cases, the Base may well be named "xxx Barracks", e.g. node Schofield Barracks, way Holsworthy Barracks, but they are still to be tagged as per this proposal: landuse=military + military=base + military_service=army + name=xxx Barracks.


The following tagging is to be deprecated:

The following tagging is added:

  • military=base is introduced for the base area of Military units
  • military_service=* is introduced for each branch of Service e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines etc.

The following tagging is modified:

  • military=barracks to be amended to read "Buildings where Military personnel live & sleep"

How to Map

Draw an area around the outline of the base and then add:

For small, one building, installations, draw the outline of the building & tag as:

For individual military offices in a non-military location eg recruitment offices in a commercial area, place a node on it's location & tag as:

You should also add the name and operator of the Base, if known:

  • name=<name of the base> eg Edwards Air Force Base
  • operator=<name of the Force which operates the base> eg United States Air Force (spelt in full)
  • Wikidata tag for the operator, & also the individual base, if known

Optionally military_service=* could be combined with admin_level=* to indicate the level of government associated with a base, as there are both international and subnational military installations, as well as national.

For example: An army base associated with the national government would be tagged military_service=army + admin_level=2

A state defence force base, such as for the California State Guard Naval Militia would be tagged military_service=navy + admin_level=4

Examples

landuse=military + military=base + military_service=army + name=Enoggera Barracks + operator=Australian Army
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25524836#map=14/-27.4311/152.9689

landuse=military + military=base + military_service=air_force + name=Edwards Air Force Base + operator=United States Air Force
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9625596

landuse=military + military=base + military_service=navy + name=HMNB Clyde + operator=Royal Navy
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/163732109#map=14/56.0609/-4.8211

Applies to

node area

Rendering

Would continue to use the existing hatched pink of landuse=military

Features/Pages affected

Pages Action
military=naval_base

protect_class=25

To be deprecated

military=base
military_service=army
military_service=navy
military_service=air_force
military_service=marines
military_service=coast_guard
military_service=joint_forces

Create these pages

This is not intended to be a definitive list of types of Military Bases. If others are encountered, they may be added at a later time.

Proposed deprecated tags
military=naval_base protect_class=25
Proposed new tags
military=base military_service=*
Proposed modified tags
military=barracks

External discussions

Tagging list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056610.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-January/057753.html

Previous proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:military%3Dnaval_base

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

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}} --~~~~
  • 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.


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Thank you everybody for your much valued comments & discussions! I hope that you all approve the proposal as well. --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I am confused about small, crossed out text - is it excluded? If yes - why it is not removed from current page version? --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (not applicable anymore Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC))
Yes, it is excluded, & will not be included in the final page. I thought that as there had been so much discussion about it, traces of it should remain in the proposal for future reference? Happy to delete all mention if required. --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Mateusz, the proposal page should be a permanent record of what was actually decided - the trials and tribulations of how we got there as a community is available for inspection in the discussion page and in the archive of the tagging mailing list discussion. A voting proposal should be a clean copy. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
And in the page history Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. All warning text now deleted. Why I thought it should still be there was this line from the Voting section of the Proposal Process page: "which should not be changed anymore, so it's clear what is being voted on"? --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. How about not-US military bases? --Matteo Zaffo80 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
What is there about this proposal that doesn't work for non-US military bases? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. IMHO top-level tags are better than stuffing things in subtags. Todeskuh (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please explain further how you would like to see it? --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Will the tag military=airfield also be affected by this proposal? --501ghost (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see discussion on talk page --Fizzie41 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see response on talk page --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. "military=base for the area of each military establishment" - is it going to be added to every landuse=military? If yes - why? If no - what are criteria for it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see response on talk page --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --WalkerB (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC) --WalkerB 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Not all objections by Mateusz Konieczny were addressed.--St Pauls (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
which are the reasons that are essential for your vote? —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Furusato (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
you should provide a reasoning for opposing, just voting no is pointless—Dieterdreist (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- I am concerned that the current definition means this tag would be added to every single landuse=military area: " A military base is a facility, directly owned and operated by or for the military or one of its branches, which houses military equipment and personnel and facilitates training and operations". Is any area of land owned and used by the military for storage, training, operations or housing a base, then? This is not clear. However, I do think that the new military_service=* tag is a good idea and I hope that is approved. --Jeisenbe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s a 1:1 relationship of landuse and features. A military=landuse could have several features within, you could have 2 bases in the same landuse polygon. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"Facilitates training" does not mean it is a training area. A training area is a big empty patch of ground where troops practice manoeuvers & general field training; a base is the area of buildings, maintenance facilites, barracks etc where personnel live, maintain equipment & do classroom training when not out in the field on exercises. I can't really see how "military_service" can be approved with =base, as we'd have nothign to attach it to? --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Examples: 1) Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/317712 a military=base according to this proposal? It's a huge marine "base" which includes semi-wilderness and large training areas, on 500 square kilometers of land, which includes barracks etc. 2) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4818939 - Camp Pendleton South, one of the 2 main developed areas. 3) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9625596# - about 1000 square kilometers, includes a developed air force base. 4) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191170223# - Umatilla Weapons depo. And if these are not appropriate for military=base, then what military=* tag should be used instead? I'm willing to change my vote if I can be convinced that we will not be tagging most landuse=military as military=base. --Jeisenbe (talk)

1. No. The whole area is landuse=military, which then contains a number of individual "bases", at least 1 military=airfield, & a huge expanse of military=training_area, which would have a few =danger_areas spread through it.

2. Yes

3. No. Whole area is landuse=military. Area that is currently mapped as an aerodrome (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33244417#map=13/34.9007/-117.9283) would become a military=base, while the area of the airfield itself to the east of that, basically the other side of Wolfe Avenue should be military=airfield. There may be other airfields in the area as well, but it's a bit hard to tell from imagery?

4. Yes, because it is all one complex

& No, everything landuse=military will NOT automatically become a military=base (although military=base will always be landuse=military!). To reiterate - a "base" is the area of buildings (or even tents) where military personnel live, sleep, eat, drill, train, carry out maintenance, store basically anything & so on. --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your fourth example, I think military=ammunition is a good fit. With the rest of your examples I agree, that it seems unclear, what exactly would be tagged as base.--TOGA (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted that tag previously. Yes, it could also be used, probably in addition to the =bunker + =munitions tags that are already in use there --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Update on this comment after looking at the other depot you made reference to, Yes, military=ammunition could go the entire area as well --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

military_service=* could be used with landuse=military - in fact I am certainly that it will be used with landuse=military + military=danger_area and other tags, since it makes sense to tag which military service has created and operates the firing range or weapons testing area. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see where you're going with this. There is a certain logic to this approach, though it should still deprecate the naval_base value --ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand the objection here. The Wikipedia definition seems to handle this definition (e.g. List of United States military bases on Wikipedia). Perhaps maybe tighten the language a bit to a "named" facility would satisfy the objection? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lectrician1 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Similar to others, I think the definition seems quite broad at the moment and this combined with some comments here and on the talk page lead to some confusion on my side, what exactly comprises a base. Maybe better, more illustrive examples might be helpful? On the talk page you also mentioned, that you would consider ammunition depots as a base. I disagree here, in my opinion the current tagging with military=ammunition, see for example area 23117657, is good and with your proposed tagging this information would be lost.--TOGA (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, ammunition depots are a base, as troops live, work & store ammunition there, so yes again, that area would also become a base. However, no information of any sort would be lost, as military=base + military_service=German Army would just be added as extra tags to the existing mapping --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
We need to clarify military_service=* - I thought it would be military_service=army, not military_service=German Army. The operator tag could be operator=Heer Deutschland (or whatever the official name is in German). --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting myself confused! :-( You are quite correct, it would indeed be military_service=joint + operator=Bundeswehr--Fizzie41 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting case because the logistics, so also ammunition depots, are part of a separate branch called Streitkräftebasis, in english Joint Support Services, but the soldiers are wearing the uniform of one the three original branches, depending on from which branch the unit came before it was integrated into the Streitkräftebasis. So military_service=joint might be appropriate?--TOGA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thought it was Army only but you are correct. Comment above corrected to say joint & Bundeswehr --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So are you proposing to use a semicolon separated value in this case? Because you can't just add military=base when it's already tagged with military=ammunition.
Another important point: Is it live AND work AND store or live OR work OR store? Your comment regarding the the Pentagon on the talk page leads me to believe it's the latter, but as far as I can see here on the proposal page it's the former. If it's indeed the latter one, we would be back to every landuse=military, training areas etc., tagged with military=base, because everything soldiers do is part of their work.--TOGA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Casey boy (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Vote Results

18 yes, 6 no, 2 abstain = 75% so proposal accepted
Thank you everybody for your support!