[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 18:12:45 UTC 2020


"Service" is the right term for what is being described (e.g. army, navy,
air force, etc), and is consistent with UK terminology[1].

However, it also assumes that every country's military forces are neatly
grouped into these categories.  The Chinese military is particularly
complex - the Chinese navy and air force are part of the army.  Some
countries have domestic police forces that are part of the military.  Saudi
Arabia, for example, has a separate air force and air defense force
organzied as separate services, the latter being carved out of the army in
the 1980s; tagging both as military_service=air_force would not be quite
right.

Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air
fields[2].  Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would
not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base.

To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with their
function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:

name=Wheeler Army Airfield
landuse=military
military=base
military_service=army
military_function=air
operator=United States Army

I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
 "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
is probably better understood by mappers.

military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
in different countries.

Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility to
combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a more
accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a difference
between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of the military
air bases".


[1]
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389755/20141208-JDP_0_01_Ed_5_UK_Defence_Doctrine.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler_Army_Airfield

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:08 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia says: "The British Armed Forces, also known as Her Majesty's
> Armed Forces, are the military services responsible for the defence of the
> United Kingdom"... so perhaps the best British term is "military service"?
>
> The Wikipedia pages on the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and British Army
> use "military service" sometimes too, and mention the overall "British
> Armed Services", "Her Majesty's Naval Service", etc.
>
> Disclaimer: I don't speak the British dialect of English (aka "Her
> Majesty's English?" :-) )
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 3:55 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 07:28, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key.
> >>
> >> Though this is based on my US English understanding of the military
> terminology. Do they call them "military service branches" in British
> English too?
> >
> >
> > "British Armed Forces."  More formally, "Her Majesty's Armed Forces."
>  See
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces  Not a suitable term
> for use
> > outside of the UK.  "Armed Forces" would be applicable outside the UK but
> > I'm not sure how well it would be understood by, say, the US.  The
> Wikipedia
> > article says that British Armed Forces are the military services in the
> UK,
> > so military_service might be the best option.  OTOH, the sidebar of
> > that article refers to the Navy, Army and Air Force as service branches,
> > so military_branch or military_service_branch would probably work.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201210/6bae8dad/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list