[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
danysan95 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 22 14:03:21 UTC 2018
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 06:42:30 +0900
> From: John Willis <johnw at mac.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose
> Message-ID: <688EF169-5441-4A7B-819F-3764EAC4CF18 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > 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
> 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.
This makes sense.
Should I edit the existng proposal adding this alternative, edit the
proposal substituting the old tag and values with the new tags or create a
new proposal with the new tags?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging