Talk:Tag:emergency=fire extinguisher
Contents
Extinguisher type
According to Wikipedia, there is different kind of extinguishers according to the powder used.
They are sorted by class of fire :
- Class A: Ordinary combustibles. Class A fires consist of ordinary combustibles such as wood, paper, fabric, and most kinds of trash.
- Class B/C: Flammable liquid and gas
- Class C or Class E: Electrical
- Class D: Metal. Class D fires consist of combustible metals such as magnesium, potassium, titanium, and zirconium.
- Class K or Class F: Cooking oils and fats (kitchen fires)
I propose to use the simplest classification possible : use the letter of the class(es) directly on the tag fire_extinguisher, e.g :
- fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A
- fire_extinguisher=BC for an extinguisher class B and C
--Overflorian (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Classification is not the same globally
The classification system seems to vary between different regions, see here for a comparison table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_States I suggest to use a more literal tag like fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles etc. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Powder description instead of type of fire
Thanks for the feedback. I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with literal description. I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any "literal" mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly mentioned. Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table.
I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any. Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary combustible) we mention the powder. After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not the use of them.
Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are : water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D powder, Halon 1211/BCF
An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles
--Overflorian (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- My thoughts on this:
- Why don't use
fire_extinguisher:*namespace instead of an underscore suffix? - When speaking of
class
in this case, many documentation treat it as
, not a type of fluid/powder provided by the extinguisher. So I propose fire_extinguisher:type=* key for this use instead. For example:
fire class- fire_extinguisher:type=dry_chemical which usually go with colour=red; a very common type, general purpose, virtually all of them I found are labeled for US-NFPA fire class A+B+C.
- fire_extinguisher:type=halotron1 for Halotron I; which usually go with colour=green, for US-NFPA fire class A+B+C; I have seen them sometimes in libraries.
- fire_extinguisher:type=halon1211 for Halon 1211; which I have seen them with colour=yellow, also for US-NFPA fire class A+B+C; not very common.
- fire_extinguisher:type=co2 for carbon dioxide; not exactly common either, for US-NFPA fire class B+C; I have seen it once with colour=red.
- fire_extinguisher:type=water which usually goes with colour=silver; not exactly common, but can still be seen sometimes; for US-NFPA fire class A.
- fire_extinguisher:type=foam for firefighting foam; not common, usually for US-NFPA fire class B.
- Regarding tank colour, see a separate discussion point below.
- Full disclosure: these descriptions are based on my experience in Thailand- which mostly adopts US-NFPA standard.
- Why don't use
Mapping the Tank Colour
One prominent characteristic about portable fire extinguishers is their colour, which can be mapped with colour=* key. While not being definitive and varies somewhat by country, tank's colour can give a strong hint on the type of fire extinguishing agent it contains (thus fire class that it is intended to cover), especially for uncommon types like Halotron I and Halon 1211.
Mapping with colour=* is also simple and can be done from afar; since you don't need to crouch to look closely or squint to read the label.
— Nutchanon Wetchasit (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
