Talk:Tag:emergency=defibrillator

aed:location

This makes no sense to me at all, after emergency=defibrillator got approved in the proposal and we are not using emergency=aed this seems very inconsistent.

In my opinion it should obviously be defibrillator:location=

--AndiG88 17 June 2014

+1, we should be consistent —M!dgard [ talk | projects | current proposal ] 20:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

makes sense, I'm using this option --PerroVerd (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

+1 --Andi 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

current usage

Analysis via overpass, jq, grep, sort and uniq by Andi

data from: 2015-02-11

 wget .... *["emergency"="defibrillator"] 
 jq '.elements[].tags' defi-world-2015-02-11.json > defi-world-2015-02-11.tags.json
 grep -E location\|note defi-world-2015-02-11.tags.json | cut -d\" -f2 | sort | uniq -c | sort -r

584 note
130 aed:location
112 defibrillator:location
 75 aed:location:de
 65 note:de
 53 aed:note:de
 49 aed:note
 37 defibrillator:location:de
 36 location
 15 defibrillator:note:de
 12 note:ja
  9 defibrillator:note
  6 note:it
  5 note:fr
  5 fixme
  4 source
  3 location:es
  3 location:de
  3 defibrillator:location:en
  3 aed:location:ja
  2 note:pl
  2 aed:note:fr
  2 aed:note:en
  1 note:en
  1 emergency:note
  1 ed:location
  1 defibrillator:note:en
  1 FIXME

Coded access

The public AEDs in my area require you call 999 to get a code to access them. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to tag these as such? Maybe access=permissive? --Dee Earley (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a photo of one on Tuesday evening. Perhaps phone=999 and ref=AD60 (in the case of the one I looked at) might be sufficient? --EdLoach (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's reasonable but doesn't explicitly say that a code is required. --Dee Earley (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

True, and after surveying more at the weekend not all of them have a ref (some have ref and postcode, some just postcode, some neither). All say phone 999 though. A similar question was asked on the proposal discussion page without an answer, and the wiki page itself suggests access is a useful combination without suggesting any valid values. Perhaps something like access=keypad? taginfo reports 57 access=key tags, but I can't find anything similar for access=code or access=keypad or access=combination. I suspect I won't add any access tag locally as all those mapped require a code. If that changes I might have to reconsider. --EdLoach (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

emergency=defibrillator on iD editor

iD developers: This isn't a preset in iD editor so has to be tagged manually (which is cumbersome) - can it be added as a preset in iD so that they are easier to map? (Ideally would appear if either defibrillator or AED was searched for) Thanks --Lakedistrict (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You may want to try posting your comment here instead. --Deanna Earley (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

iD does now include a preset Jnicho02 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

defibrillator:pediatric = yes

It would be appropriate to add information regarding the possibility of using the AED on a child. What do you say?--Cristoffs (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

min_age=none or defibrillator:for=senior;adult;juvenile;child? --- Kovposch (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't like such multiple markings. The problem always arises when there are several values. We are now running AED mapping in Poland and we sometimes have a problem with poor marking of these devices. I would rather suggest: defibrillator:senior=yes; defibrillator:child=yes

As part of the campaign, we cooperate with the National Consultant in the field of Emergency Medicine, so I will collect accurate data on the attributes of defoblirators and try to put it together. Then we'll see.

Ok sorry it was more of a joke on what we have. You can still invent defibrillator:for=all, since it should be clear what "all" this is; or adddefibrillator:for:child=yes. --- Kovposch (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The leading medical authorities in the country were involved in the AED determination project in Poland. We don't take it like a joke. Read yourself https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/AED_mapping_campaign_in_Poland --Cristoffs (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The device generally has two modes and should include two sets of tips. For children up to one year old and for all others. I was able to consult the method of marking with Paramedics. We should be able to indicate whether there is a pediatric kit in the envelope and whether the device is available for a disabled person, but this is another matter and we are working on this issue at the OSMP. Therefore, I propose to introduce an additional marking such as a defibrillator: pediatric = yes. There are no other age restrictions for AEDs.--Cristoffs (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not rendered on default style on openstreetmap.org

This tag is not rendered on the default style sheet on openstreetmap.org. Does anybody know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyboris (talk • contribs) 8 April 2022 11:05 UTC

I'll invite you to read the 96 comments across 6 years to find out https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1603 --- Kovposch (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I won't touch that beehive, but I do wonder why it appears OsmAnd found a way to render this without cluttering the map (perhaps it has to do with zoom levels). --IByte (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Gallery

Regarding [1] and [2]: Do we really need so many images? Are there siginificant differences between the appearance of devices? I think some images could be removed. maro21 22:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Does having (in your opinion) "too many" images actually hinder your understanding of the page? Moreover, in mobile view sections actually autocollapse, therefore I think it is unlikely a sizeable image collection is an inconvenience to anyone, and personally I'd advise to take a rather conservative approach to removing volunteer contributions that aren't outright wrong. IByte (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually yes. Partially because it reduces usability (in extreme cases it may put strain on connection, especially mobile one), can be distracting and crowd out important info. Current one is borderline, but to give an extreme case: I think that you agree that having 1000 example images would be a bad idea? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that there actually are 1000 images, nor anything close to that number... IByte (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There are two steps here (1) establishing that at certain point that there are too many images and "removing volunteer contributions that aren't outright wrong" in such case is perfectly fine (2) decide whether it applies here. This example is given to show "removing volunteer contributions that aren't outright wrong" is sometimes correct Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)