Proposed features/Tag:amenity=ranger station

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal ranger_station is located at Tag:amenity=ranger_station
ranger_station
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: brycenesbitt
Tagging: amenity=ranger_station
Applies to: node,area
Definition: An official building housing police, visitor information, permit services, for a park or natural area.
Statistics:

Rendered as: Icon drawn from USA NPS official set.
Drafted on: 2013-08-05
RFC start: 2013-08-06
Vote start: 2013-08-20
Vote end: 2013-10-01

Purpose

For showing the location of a ranger station or park visitor center. Ranger stations offer a variety of services such as police, visitor information, permits, exhibits, etc. This may be mapped as a single point, or as an area on a single building or group of buildings.

See also

External Links

History & Tag Migration

Imports by the US National Park Service used amenity=police for Ranger Stations, prior to this proposal. If this tag is approved it is the the proposer's intent to retag most clearly identifiable amenity=police nodes to amenity=ranger_station, if they reside within a USA state or National Park. This may catch the odd police only station, but the typical case should be correct. See Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 24 votes for and 0 votes against.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- --N76 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Glassman (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lyx (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. CS Mur (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Brycenesbitt (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (tag proponent)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Janko (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Ansis (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Mmaki (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. kerryg (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Tekim (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Milesbarger (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Russell Deffner (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Nateirwin (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Makella (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Dothandave (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. DTWilder (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--voschix (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Skorasaurus (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC) My only question or suggestion: Why would a building=yes tag also be needed if the closed way already has amenity=ranger_station on it ? If there's a building whose only use is as a ranger station, then as I understand, adding the building=yes is redundant.
It's true that the remark about "building=yes" could be avoided. For a big station with 2 or more buildings, we can trace a surrounding polygon tagged with "amenity=*" and keep "building" in the building polygones inside (or the station is fenced). See amenity=school doc as a guideline. --Pieren (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
amenity=fire_station recommends the building=yes approach, and the rendering engines use both tags. Brycenesbitt (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The same remark applies for all features, including fire stations, when the feature is more than one building. --Pieren (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Dchiles (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Fschmidt (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. tpcolson (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Rarspace01 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. LordOfMaps (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. AlaskaDave (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)