Talk:Proposed features/Military area
I find the short definition Facility directly owned and operated by or one of its branches that shelters military equipment and personnel, and facilitates training and operations. a bit hard to understand, I would suggest a more simple "short description" such as "Boundary of areas used by military". Then, a deeper explanation could explain it can be used as a landuse=forest and a military area, that it has some restriction, that military=* can be used with it, ...
But it's just a matter of clear description, I support the idea.
sletuffe 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not completly fluent in english. So your help is appreciated. I retain your definition, better than mine.
Looks good to me, I move it to RFC/proposed, I'm sending a mail for a wider audience on talk list sletuffe 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to distinguish between 'military base' and 'military used land'. An area of moorland or beach used for exercises is not a military base, and is not a facility of any kind - just some empty land. But it is important to show it on the map as a restricted or dangerous area. Further, there may be public land which just happens to be used by the military for training marches or other non-dangerous activities, but remains open to the public. So there are at least three cases: (1) a military base or facility, with a defined perimeter and personnel stationed there, (2) land set aside for military exercises such as target practice, which is dangerous to enter, (3) land that just happens to be used by the military sometimes, and probably does not need to be specially marked on a general-purpose map. -- Ed Avis <firstname.lastname@example.org> 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just modified the proposal : As you said, it's not only for the base itself, it's for all the military areas, zones, what ever word you prefer. The tag is to be used to mark restricted ou forbiden access zones. You'll find fences, walls, or signs like the one on the page.
- I've renamed the page accordingly. -- Ed Avis <email@example.com> 10:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In France, there are lots of military areas with forests ou land used for training, and there is only signs to mark it. So, it's usefull to show that the forest or the land is "military".
- Hi, you are talking about "there is fences or walls" is this mandatory to tag is with boundary=military ? I know some places where military are training some part of the year in a big forest, and there are signs all around it to say entrance is restricted, but still the area is too huge to be fully surounded by fence. Is this tag ment for that use as well ? If yes, the wording could be changed to "you usually find fences or walls, but on larger area, only signs are visible" ? sletuffe 08:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done --Gilles tagada 10:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are several levels of military areas, much like several levels of administrative areas. These levels should be tagged as well. Can we use a military_level=N like boundary=administrative does? These should be rendered differently and routed differently. I don't want my GPS to route me through a mine field or military installation. There are different consequences if you enter a military area. Here are the levels I can think of (and consequences to entering the areas):
- Top secret areas (Shot on sight)
- Hazardous areas like shooting range or minefield (Blown up or shot by accident)
- Bases and military installations with restricted access (Arrested)
- Military controlled zones with open access (May need to show ID)
- Areas with are used by the military (May spot military activity)
- Gnonthgol 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The tag is to be used when the area is permanent restricted access (with fences, signs, wall...).
- As you said it's specificly aimed to prevent GPS to route trought it. The reason why, is not relevant for the GPS "point of view". By the way, some of the dangers you mentionned already exist in the "military=*" tag. Don't you think "military=danger_area" or "military=range" is clear enough?
- --Gilles tagada 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I supose you can use military=danger_area, military=range, military=base etc. for all military areas. Fences should be tagged with barrier=fence anyway. Witch makes the boundary=military tag obsolete. Why not tag a forest with landuse=forest military=yes access=no? This can get very hard for detail mapping. What I suggested was using the already common known admin_level=* for boundary=military. This means there are less for the mapper to learn and more and better maps. I suppose you can use boundary=military military=range barrier=fence but why not use the already established level tag? --Gnonthgol 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, "military=yes" is one of the many possibles solutions. But I prefer the "boundary=military" solution, because it's the same logic as for natural or national parks. The "boundary" term suppose a limit which can't be crossed. I think it's more explicit than a "military=yes" and "acces=no", which is still possible, but less clear.
- And I also think in term of rendering. It's easier to draw the limit of the military area out of one tag, instead of 2 or more. And I imagine the problem to draw the limit, having to test each areas around to see if it has the "military=yes" or not.
- Because the aim is to only have the limit drawn on the map, and not a red surface like for "military=" areas : the aim is that the user see a forest or a lake or a parking lot, with a red limit showing it's inside a military aera.
- --Gilles tagada 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
landuse=military is an already existing tag. Why not use this? I see no reason to introduce another tag for that. --NobodysNightmare 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- How do you tag a landuse=wood and landuse=military? A military are often have many landuses. Military areas are more boundaries like national parks then landuse. -- Gnonthgol 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- natural=wood landuse=military, just to help you out... --Deltabrasil 14:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)