Proposed features/assembly point:purpose
|Assembly point purpose|
|Definition:||Kind of emergency an assembly point is designed for|
An emergency assembly point is not necessarily designed for all emergencies. It could be designed for only some of them or even for a single emergency type.
This is not representable right now on OSM, since the only tag available is emergency=assembly_point which indicates a generic assembly point. This proposal solves the problem adding a subtag for each emergency type (assembly_point:fire=*, assembly_point:tsunami=*, ...) which specifies whether the assembly point is suitable for that emergency type.
Originally this proposal used the tag assembly_point:purpose=* (assembly_point:purpose=fire, assembly_point:purpose=tsunami, ...), a scheme similar to the one used in other emergency tags (for example emergency=siren -> siren:purpose=*). This scheme however had a major problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose but assembly_point:purpose=* locks you into a certain purpose. The new solution is more generic and allows to specify each emergency type, if you care to map it.
|assembly_point:fire=yes||Assembly point where people can go in case of fire.|
|assembly_point:fire=no||This assembly point is not suitable in case of fire|
|assembly_point:tsunami=yes||Assembly point where people can go to protect against a tsunami wave.|
|assembly_point:tsunami=25||Assembly point where people can go to protect against a tsunami only up to a certain height (in this case, 25 meters) This is the height of the top platform, if it is a structure.|
|assembly_point:earthquake=yes||Assembly point where people can go in case of earthquake if their house is condemned and/or an aftershock is foreseeable.|
|assembly_point:tornado=yes||Assembly point where people can shelter from an incoming tornado.|
|assembly_point:landslide=yes||Assembly point where people can go to protect against a landslide|
|assembly_point:flood=yes||Assembly point where people can go in case of flooding|
Please comment on the discussion page.
- I approve this proposal. --Gabrielesani (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --PanierAvide (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good proposal, thank you. --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I see no problems --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. In general I support the content of this proposal, but not the scheme - the originally proposed "assembly_point:purpose=*" was much better. There is no problem in adding a list of purposes to this one tag. Having the value as part of the key will lead to a huge amount of keys (mostly with new "creative" spellings of various other purposes) that are hard to interpret in any application. The proposal also misses a tag to mark a point as "multi-purpose". --Mueschel (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- "also misses a tag to mark a point as "multi-purpose"" - why that would be useful or necessary? Just specify each purpose. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you can add a list of emergency types to assembly_point:purpose=*, but then you would be implying that the point is only suitable for these types; however that may not be true. For example you could know that an assembly point is designed for fires and floods but not know if it is designed for earthquakes; writing assembly_point:purpose=fire;flood implies that it's only designed for fires and floods; writing assembly_point:fire=yes+assembly_point:flood=yes instead does not imply anything about earthquakes, unless you specify assembly_point:earthquake=no. Yes, for an application the actual scheme is sightly harder to work with, but the ability to represent correctly the real world domain has the precedence. This proposal will not lead to a huge amount of keys if the correct keys for the most common emergencies will be well documented in the emergency=assembly_point wiki page and the mappers will follow the guidelines. As Mateusz Konieczny's comment pointed out the "multi-purpose" tag is unnecessary with the actual scheme. - Danysan (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Wille (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Kazing (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. —seav (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Romanf (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Although assembly points around here are not signed, so it is very hard to verify on the ground without the help of locals. --Bkil (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Privatemajory (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)