[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
> Ground/land, air/aviation & maritime/naval all seem pretty well
> interchangeable, space is ready for the future & we should also include
> amphibious & probably Staff / Command / Headquarters for somewhere like
> this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/89605! Currently
> office=military & also office+government (together with building=public?),
> so would become landuse=military + military=base +
> military_service=joint_forces + function/branch="command" - sound good?
>

Yes, this makes sense in broad strokes, though some thought is needed as to
the exact set of keys and values would be needed to describe these things.


> I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
> is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
> whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
> non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
> about identifying things too accurately‽
>

I think it would be fine to have a way to tag such unit identifiers, though
there can be multiple tenant units within a base, so this is possibly
beyond the scope of base tagging.

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
> base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
> what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?
>

I do not think that military_service=yes or =unknown should be included in
the proposal.  For the "=unknown" situation, this is accomplished by simply
omitting the tag, and for the "=yes" situation, this is redundant with the
military=* tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201210/ce7004fb/attachment.htm>