[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
johnw at mac.com
Fri Sep 21 21:42:30 UTC 2018
> On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least fire and earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose.
Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters.
Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people want to map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for one aspect.
Tsunami (height in M)
Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash floods.
Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit)
With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly fallout shelters.
But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have no :foobar=tags.
Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the safe top of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go here. Same with tornado.
Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they will not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide risks, and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake.
:Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes just means it is "safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*.
Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits all the implied traits.
More information about the Tagging