Talk:Proposed features/club=cadet

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page done backwards!

As 快乐的老鼠宝宝 pointed out, I somehow managed to create the tag page first, rather than a proposal page! :-( As per the below discussion, it was decided to leave it till voting was completed. Hopefully, this now all works properly? --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this page and its talk page should be renamed

Because this is a proposing feature and those pages is for voting, I think it should be renamed as "Proposed_features/Tag:club=cadet"

And use "Tag:club=cadet" for final manual for mapping

-- 快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ooops! You're perfectly correct! How on Earth did we get manage to get this far in with nobody, particularly me, noticing that? Going to need a bit of technical advice here? If I move this page to "Proposed_features/Tag:club=cadet", can it then come back again to be "Tag:club=cadet", or will it say that that page already exists? --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
At this moment, better leave it. Transfer the proposal content to the new page after the voting is done to repurpose it for the article. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fizzie41: and @Kovposch:, In my opinion, this pages should be renamed, but we should waiting for the voting finished. And in technical, if you use the "move" function in wiki, it will auto create a redirect from "Tag:club=cadet" to "Proposed_features/Tag:club=cadet". And when you want to write document, you can remove the redirect and use a link instead. I'll do this when voting finish, because this current pages were inculded in WeeklyOSM (#Mapping,6th). --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I'll leave it till next week then, then create the proper proposal page --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Following discussion re the Military Cadets tag <>, I decided to modify that proposal to introduce a new tag of club=cadet + cadet=*

cadet=military proposal has now been returned to Draft, pending resolution of this proposal --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Good job Fizzie. I approve this proposal. Gendy54 (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


I know some people prefer to ensure we define any values to make them "approved" before then documenting on the wiki. So I think it might be worth us coming up with a list of potential values for this proposal (so that they can be approved, along with this tag).

So, for completeness, I recommend as a start:

and, depending, on the outcome of the military cadets discussions either



Any other ones spring to mind? Casey boy (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ambulance v First Aid could be a bit of a tricky one? In Australia, St John is the Ambulance Service in two states:, and NT, at least, do have cadets:
Once again out here, each State has a State Emergency Service for disaster and emergency support, and individual SES groups can also have a cadet program.
With regard to Military (and I've returned that proposal to draft only pending discussion and an eventual outcome of this one), yes, I agree that going to cadet=army / air etc will be the best way. As to "Service" names, Army and Air are pretty straight-forward, but then you get Navy v Sea? Out here, they're Navy Cadets but UK has Sea Cadets - do we stick with British English? :-) Similar thing with Joint v Combined - Military units made up from different branches are Joint, but the UK has Combined Cadets, while a private school near here has it's own Tri-Service Cadet Unit! --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(Copied from cadet=military proposal) cadet=military + military_service=* is better to me. This avoids defining what is "military" (or "police" or "fire service") and all the possible cadet=*, leaving this to the additional tag. cadet=combined_military doesn't look nice either. How about service_times=*? -- Kovposch (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ---- Kovposch (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I Like these two proposals. I looked at the US organisations and they will be a good fit. cadet=combined_military will I think be necessary to cover GB's Combined Cadet Force and similar multi-sponsored organisations. --TonyS (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a proper term, eg according to US DoD JP and UK MoD JDP definitions. "Combined" refers to multinational. Only "joint" means across branches, which seems to be used in Combined Cadet Force terminology too.
military_service=joint_forces was voted on in Proposed features/Military bases, yet dropped from Key:military service, likely as discussed in Talk:Key:military service#Joint bases. Explicitly listing out *=army;navy;air_force in full is clearer in showing it is sponsored by all these branches, and for countries with more branches.
---- Kovposch (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Agree to joint. Explicit listing army;navy;air_force may by good for human readers but not so good for computer processing. IF we need to go to that level might cadet:army=yes, cadet:navy=yes be better at handling those multi-value instances? --TonyS (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to previous comments - for some reason I didn't get any notification of them, so was thinking nobody was saying anything? It seems like everybody likes the basic idea of club=cadet (although there will need to be a bit of work on the actual definitions), with the original cadet=military being the tricky bit! --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


All comments & suggestions welcome, either here or the tagging list discussion!


Any further comments before we move to voting?

As I've mentioned, I think the actual military cadets (cadet=army / sea etc vs cadet=military + military_service=*) should be discussed under it's own proposal, once this one is sorted, but that appears to be the only point of discussion? --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


The building tagging recommendations are confusing. It recommends wrong things like "add a node to that building as: building=*" and suggest to double-tag a building housing several facilities with a duplicate tag of the facility. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, that was badly worded, so now amended. Does that make better sense? --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Well the case within a school etc is worded correctly now. The case with two clubs sharing one building still creates 3 club tags. In general, we have the standard case here that a POI either fills a building or just a part of it. My preference would have been not to prescribe the building tagging in the proposal, as it is the default situation anyway. Further I tend not to recommend 'yes' as the building value when more qualified values are possible. So if the facility is purpose-built, you can say building=club or building=communty_centre, if they are reusing a residential house or a small school building, the building=* describes that type. --Polarbear w (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but when it's a shed on School grounds, but which is only used by the cadet group, not the school; or a purpose built building once again only used by cadets, what do we call it? As I mentioned up the top of the page, that's an unwinnable one, because some people say that it can only be a building=cadet if it's unmistakably a building built for cadet use, of which there's no such thing; while others say it should be building=cadet so we can do a search & say that there are xxxx cadet buildings in this area? We're never going to resolve that argument! :-( --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's built as a shed, it's building=shed regardless of later use. building=cadet is too narrow, but a purpose built club or community_centre has some characteristic features such as an assembly room fitting the size of the group, maybe smaller breakout rooms, maybe a small office for the paperwork, a tea kitchen or slightly larger catering. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)