[Tagging] refugee camp

[Violaine_Do]

Yes, I would prefer that too... Let's see what others think..

On 19/06/2019 14:18, Warin wrote:
> 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
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Violaine_Do

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190619/5c7d3b3b/attachment.html>