[Tagging] refugee camp
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jun 20 00:18:21 UTC 2019
It is a land use, residential .. at least on a temporary basis. possibly
landuse=residential, residential=migrants?
This avoids the over used amenity key. Most renders will render it
unidentified from other residential area and HOT can use their own
rendering to identify it.
On 20/06/19 09:49, Violaine_Do wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to point out also a few questions or thoughts : i am not sure
> it is ok (or pretty sure it is dangerous) to tag houses or group of
> houses with refugee=yes because it is quite localised and could be a
> sensitive information.
>
> Then I am not a big fan of
> amenity=social_facility+social_facility:for=refugee for spotting a
> whole camp, as it is recurrent that there is social facilities in this
> camp, and so it will lead to errors such as "impossible to have an
> amenity inside an amenity".
>
> Looking forward to read HOT views,
>
> Thks
>
> On 12/06/2019 23:29, Rupert Allan wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Thanks Violaine, for sharing this. Yes, we did a lot of work on these
>> semantics and tagging in the Ugandan context. We use refugee = yes,
>> because designated refugee areas are not always 'camps' (settlements,
>> urban blocks, etc).
>>
>> 'Camp' can be pejorative/othering in certain contexts. IDPs as
>> Internally Displayed Persons are certainly refugees. I copy-in Paul
>> Uithol and Deo Kiggudde to collaborate in this discussion. Having
>> limited online access, I will monitor and comment more next week,
>> once back online proper.
>> Best,
>>
>> Rupert
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 21:45 Violaine, <violaine at posteo.net
>> <mailto:violaine at posteo.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> fyi, i think you could help on this discussion...
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] refugee camp
>> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:44:34 -1000
>> From: Violaine_Do <violaine_osm at posteo.de>
>> <mailto:violaine_osm at posteo.de>
>> Reply-To: violaine_osm at posteo.de <mailto:violaine_osm at posteo.de>
>> Organization: OSM
>> To: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>, daveswarthout at gmail.com
>> <mailto:daveswarthout at gmail.com>, Tag discussion, strategy and
>> related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> CC: Rupert Allan <rupert.allan at hotosm.org>
>> <mailto:rupert.allan at hotosm.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> As wikipedia (1) seems to say refugee camp implies internally
>> displaced people it seem ok to me. (i was wondering if IDP was a
>> type of refugees or different)
>>
>> Maybe add a refugee_camp:for=refugee/idp..., refugee_camp:type=
>> informal/...
>>
>> I still want to point out that there is more than 2500 use of
>> refugee=yes (2) so I add Allan to this discussion, hoping he has
>> some more field feedbacks, what having this new tag would imply..
>>
>> 1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp
>>
>> 2:https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/refugee#overview
>>
>> On 11/06/2019 21:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer something like refugee_camp=yes or similar.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>> --
>> Violaine_Do
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190620/7145f94b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list