[Tagging] fire extinguisher class

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 11:07:49 UTC 2015


2015-04-24 11:34 GMT+02:00 Florian LAINEZ <winnerflo at free.fr>:

>
>
>    1. Describe the classes: they are not standard internationally and I
>    think we should avoid them
>
>

+1



>
>    1. Describe the local classes: not suitable worldwide
>
>

as long as you have correct country / standard namespaces, you can do this
and will have the information that is needed (but likely will have to be
normalized by the data consumer). This seems easy for the mapper though (he
can tag what he sees).


>
>    1.
>    2. Describe the combustible: it requires to understand the kind of
>    fire that is suitable for an extinguisher : It can be subjective as the
>    brakets denote in the table here
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom
>    Also we would potentially have multiple keys e.g.
>    fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles;flammable
>    liquid;electricity
>
>

we could have a table in the wiki that defines human readable values for
the classes that you can see on the extinguisher, e.g.
Comparison of fire classes American European UK Australian/Asian Fuel/heat
source Class A Class A Class A Class A Ordinary combustibles Class B Class
B Class B Class B Flammable liquids Class C Class C Class C Flammable gases
Class C UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Class E Electrical equipment Class D
Class D Class D Class D Combustible metals Class K Class F Class F Class F
Cooking oil or fat


The tag name could also be more explicit, e.g.
fire_extinguisher_for_fire_type
or
for_fire_type

the values could be
ordinary_combustibles (or maybe "generic", "normal", "ordinary"?), liquids,
gases, electrical, metals, fat



>
>    1. Describe the kind of combustible: again it requires to understand
>    the kind of fire that is suitable for an extinguisher
>
>
again, could be a translation table in the wiki to normalize local standard
to normalized human readable value



>
>    1.
>    2. Describe the type of powder: could be a good solution but the bad
>    think is that we would potentially have multiple keys e.g.
>    fire_extinguisher_class=water;foam;dry_powder
>
>
the usual solution for avoiding multiple values is putting them in the key,
e.g.
fire_extinguisher_agent:water=yes

or more linguistically correct
extinguishing_agent:water=yes


My choice would be "5. Describe the type of powder" with the following keys:
>
>    - water
>    - foam
>    - dry_powder
>    - co2
>    - wet_chemical
>    - class_D
>    - halon
>
>
These seem to be different types of descriptions,

water, co2 and halon are describing the chemical material or group of
materials

foam, dry_powder, wet_chemical are describing the shape and aggregate state

class_D is refering to some standard


cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150424/d7dcc503/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list