[Tagging] refugee camp
violaine_osm at posteo.de
Thu Jun 20 00:39:12 UTC 2019
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,
>> 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.
>>> 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=
>>> 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..
>>> On 11/06/2019 21:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>> I would prefer something like refugee_camp=yes or similar.
>>>> Cheers, Martin
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging