[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route
Eric H. Christensen
eric at aehe.us
Mon Aug 6 05:27:49 UTC 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
> At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
> And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. Arr well.
We went down this path, I think, last summer. The expectation is that these route made up of roads. I'm not sure why one would include a node in this. This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but probably not the emergency key which isn't really for routes.
> Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
> Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
> Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.
I'm not sure I understand this. I suspect these types of routes are preplanned in many different countries.
> Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd add a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.
Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking about a building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which would require ways. I don't think the existing proposal would prevent someone from expanding to such things *but* I'm trying to tackle the problem of evacuation routes along roads that have been preplanned for emergencies and disasters.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Tagging