From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Returned to Draft

Proposal returned to Draft status pending discussions on club=cadet proposal: --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


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


As always, this will be an issue.

Some people will say that Cadet buildings should be listed as building=cadet, for data purposes; while others will also exclaim, quite correctly!, that there is no such thing as a standard Cadet building, so it can't, and shouldn't, be listed that way!

Location on Military Sites

Many of our local cadet corps are co-located on Territorial Army sites, or the locations have some permanent military staff. Obviously this tag suits school OTC, but not local university squadrons (also clearly a military site). So although not necessarily part of the military, many of the sites themselves will be owned & run by the military (typical Army Reserve Centres). Of course this is not incompatible with the suggested tagging SK53 (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I'll clarify that a bit to stress that cadet buildings by themself are NOT landuse=military, although if they are on a military base, they will be included in it's landuse. --Fizzie41 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we widen proposal to incorporate non-military cadets?

Overall, this looks good to me - nice job!

The only thing niggling in the back of my mind is whether we should have club=cadet and then specify the military part through the subtagging (e.g. cadet=military). The reason I bring this up is that I can find several non-military/emergency services cadet foces. For example, in the UK:

I'm sure others exist around the globe too. So, to map these, we'd have to consider either individual tags (e.g. club=fire_cadet) or an over-arching club=cadet tag with appropriate sub-tags. If we then went with the latter, it would raise the question why military cadets wouldn't be included. Casey boy (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks!
We also have cadet programs in the various State Emergency Services, Rural Fire Services & similar volunteer groups, so it would probably be a good idea to do as you say & just start with club=cadets.
The only (very!) slight issue I have is that these cadets are based out of the Groups building eg SES Cadets are located in that area's SES Rescue Station, rather than having their own building. That would probably mean having the building tagged as an emergency=rescue_station & also having a node on it to say club=cadet + cadet=SES? Would that cause an issue?
I do see on the link you provided for UK Police Cadets that they are apparently often the same as Military Cadets in that they use School buildings etc, so it wouldn't be the same issue there. --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that'd be fine - the club=* key can be used on a standalone node. In fact, I think in some countries it is often encouraged to seperate building and use. Casey boy (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

New proposal created for club=cadet has been created by Fizzie41.

Some other ways of tagging military cadets

I did a quick search for cadets in the UK and found some examples of various tagging. All had "cadet" in their name=*, but approached the actual tagging rather differently:

I think it's clear that we'd definitely benefit from a consistent tagging scheme for cadets. Casey boy (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all those, & yep, totally agree that we need a consistent scheme. But your examples showed something that I hadn't encountered before: Apparently the Cadet unit have their own indoor Firing Range! --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Method of Tagging

Just working on modifying the proposal & hit a snag.

Originally, tagging was to be in the format:
club=military_cadets + military_cadets=* = Sea / Army / Air / Combined, based on the branch of it's sponsoring Military service:

Going with the new version, it would then become club=cadet + cadet=military, which is fine, but how do we then show what "Service" they belong to, or don't we bother?

We do have, but I think that goes against the grain of cadets not actually being part of the military forces.

We could just leave it as cadet=military, with all Cadets being grouped together, relying on the individual name & Operator to distinguish them, but down the track, that would then cause issues for data searches?

Possibly continue it as cadet=military + military=*

Thoughts & suggestions? --Fizzie41 (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue to use military_service=* to specify the service that the unit is part of, however personally I think it would be better to scrap the cadet=military and use cadet=air_force / cadet=army / cadet=combined_military like how cadet=police is used.
A concern I have about this proposal is how should units be consistently tagged. Are the grounds of the unit tagged as landuse=military, if not, what landuse should be used instead? Are buildings going to be tagged as military? If not, can ranges still be tagged as landuse=military military=range??
Also I think that if the building has any other purpose than supporting a single cadet force, then the cadet tags should only be placed onto a new node. So if the building has the purpose of housing a different cadet force, or a different purpose all together (like a school) then it will not be confusing what the other tags relate to, for example if contact number, email, address, website, etc are added.
:Also I don't like the idea of "meeting_hours=*" or "parade_hours=*", if what I said above is followed then there will be no issues using "opening_hours=*" as is widely used currently. --Thomas Jarvis (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
1) I'm conscious that I suggested moving to club=cadet, cadet=military but I think you might be right. Moving to cadet=army, cadet=air, cadet=joint_forces, and cadet=sea (perhaps that should be navy, though in the UK they are called sea cadets) would solve this issue and match with cadet=fire (e.g. rather than cadet=emergency_services). We could use this proposal page to discuss/document the specific tags to be used for military cadets though.
2) It's a good point but the issue of club grounds is one that extends to far more than this proposal. Many mappers are now using the club=* key to draw around the whole grounds operated by the club (instead of just a node for example, or secondary tagging on a building). Of course, that doesn't really tag what the landuse is (etc.) but is probably beyond the scope of this proposal.
3) I agree with the proposal text. I don't think landuse=military should be used by default for cadet forces - it should only be used if the cadet building is located inside a military base (and then that landuse is applied to the whole base, not just the cadet HQ). I do agree that a seperate node should be used when the building the cadets are located in has a different primary use (e.g. a school).
4) Good point regarding opening hours/parade hours. If the cadets are based in a, e.g., school then the club will be tagged as a node, so the seperate opening hours can be added to the node. I wonder, however, if there is the possibility of a cadet HQ being "open" to cadets for longer periods (or other days) than the "parade hours" (i.e. the time when most cadets will be in attendence for training etc)? In which case, we might need multiple tags to describe this? Casey boy (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both! Yes, separate types of military cadet eg cadet=army will probably be the better way to go. To avoid confusion, we should probably shut this proposal down, or at least return it to draft, & carry on the discussions under club=cadet, then re-start it?

With regard to landuse, no, they should not be landuse=military as they are not a military unit (except, of couse, for those Cadet groups that are located on a military base)

Yes, separate nodes if there are multiple uses of the same building e.g. cadets use a school building / community centre or if two different cadet units use the same building.

With regard to "opening hours", yes, I can see your point. In regard to being "open" for longer than tagged, I still think it should only make reference to the official "parade" times? In the case of the Volunteer Emergency Service that I belong to, hours are tagged as 06:30 - 12:30 as that is when it is certain somebody will be there. However, there's usually somebody there from 04:30 onwards, quite often people are there during the afternoon for admin / maintenance work & so on, but officially, it's only 06:30-12:30. --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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! Have copied your comments across to the club=cadet page --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Do these organisations have to be sponsored by their respective national military? Or can they be free of governmental ties but providing miltary style cadetships. Looking at

Interesting question! All Military Cadet groups that I am aware of (Australia & UK) are indeed sponsored by one of the various Military Services, if for no other reason than provision of uniforms, but I don't suppose it is a necessary requirement? Reading that site though, it does make reference to training being conducted on a operational Military base, so I would think that they would have to have some link with e.g. the US Army, to get permission to enter the base? I have amended the proposal definition though to say "usually loosely linked" --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Which version?

Thanks everybody for your support with the club=cadet proposal!

So, coming back to where it all started, how do we want to go with Military Cadets?

There are two alternatives.

1. We follow the format voted on with club=cadet e.g. cadet=police etc, and,, in keeping with the OSM British English base, and the names for the various British Military Cadet Units, use cadet=army / sea / air / combined?


Keeps the same format

Sticks to the British English theory


Not everybody uses those names for Military Cadet Units, especially with regard to "Combined".

2. Follow the format used for military_service=*, so they would be mapped as
cadet=military + military_service=army / navy / air-force / joint


Follows the existing military designation


Possibly makes them appear "too" military, when we have pointed out that they are NOT part of a country's military services?

What do you all think? (& I'm sure there are more pros & cons to be considered, so please add to them!) --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

After quite a bit of thought, umming & ahing, (& no dissenting input), I've decided to go with the original plan as
cadet=military + military_service=* = army / navy / air / joint
Still happy to hear any major objections, though! --Fizzie41 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I've recently done some tidying up of the cadet pages and have followed the above tagging scheme (cadet=military + military_service=*). However, I note that in the approved proposal for club=cadet you specifically stated:
"If two Cadet groups share the same building e.g. both an Army and an Air Cadet unit, tag as:
building=yes + club=cadet, then add two nodes, in this case
club=cadet + cadet=army and also club=cadet + cadet=air, each with their own details. "
I think this means club=army is the actually approved approach rather than cadet=military + military_service=army, since you specifically introduced this tagging scheme in the proposal and the proposal was accepted as a whole (perhaps a minor technically and perhaps I am wrong!). Thoughts? Casey boy (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be club=cadet + cadet=military + military_service=* on each of them, thanks. --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)