<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/2/23 13:25, Andrew Harvey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstC4tmddRab-ZF7LD99mP+x5ddXuub5oHy=od+UhEo1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Echoing what cleary said about reliance on the DCS Base
Map, it's not our goal to recreate their label format.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The labels they use look to be based on what is 'on the ground'.
I don't think they have made the labels up. <br>
</p>
<p>The question of DCS being out of date, I know of one fire station
that appears to be out of date since the fires. That is noted in
the OSM data base but is still where it was and the same as the
DCS. I have an idea of where it has gone but lack any proof let
alone OSM usable proof. On the other hand I have just marked a
'fire station' in OSM that has not been used for ~30 years as
was:amenity=fire_station, it does not exist in the DCS Base Map.
No map is free of 'errors' nor of being entirely 'up to date'. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstC4tmddRab-ZF7LD99mP+x5ddXuub5oHy=od+UhEo1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In my opinion it's more important to have branch and ref
tagged as it gives more flexibility to data consumers on how
they choose to label it, eg. they could choose,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>{branch} FS</div>
<div>{branch} Fire Station</div>
<div>{branch} Fire Station, {ref}</div>
<div>{operator} Station {ref}, {branch}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>etc.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree that they could, but few will. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstC4tmddRab-ZF7LD99mP+x5ddXuub5oHy=od+UhEo1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the name I'd first go with any signage on the ground,
but otherwise I think "Lane Cove Fire Station" works well.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think the 'signage on the ground' is dictated by 'head office'
so as to present some uniformity to the public. Much like any
large organization these days. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstC4tmddRab-ZF7LD99mP+x5ddXuub5oHy=od+UhEo1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at
22:01, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Note .. The Lane Cove
Fire Station had 2 entries for the one feature, <br>
one on a single node the other on a way tagged for the
building. I <br>
removed the duplicated tags from the building and place them
on the <br>
node. No I am not doing this everywhere, I seek to separate
the <br>
amenity=fire_station from the building=* and then expand the
amenity to <br>
the boundaries usually beyond the building. Lane Cove did
not lend <br>
itself to that. Still thinking on it, and a few other
problem sites.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For fire stations that have grounds then yes you'd have
amenity=fire_station on the grounds with a seperate
building=* way inside. But for these city fire stations that
don't have grounds and take up the whole building, the
amenity=fire_station -should go on the building way.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Noted. <br>
</body>
</html>