[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 06:02:56 UTC 2018

On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 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.

I have not mentioned 'nodes'.
On the proposal page - in edit mode there is:
|name = Evacuation Route
|user = Sparks
|key = evacuation_route
|value = *
|type = {{IconWay}}

The type should be {{IconRelation}} not {{IconWay}}.
As  it is with {{IconWay}} there will need to be new ways created for the evacuation route
rather than use the existing ways that are roads/paths etc as members in a relation.

And I would think there need to be rules for the relation, for example;
start at one end and have each member/way in sequence to the finish, the finish might be required to be in/near the 'safe place'.
This would save the forwards backwards thing, just like in Public transport v2.

>> 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.

Yes. But I'm thinking of the rendering. I think that would be done for local areas, not the entire world.

>> 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.

Wrong kind of fire .. though those too might one day be mapped.
But I mean forest fires/wild fires/bushfires depending on what part of the world your from.
But I would tag them as 'fire' rather than do all the different ways that people refer to them.
I'd still add the '/*' to it. Just in case.

More information about the Tagging mailing list