[Tagging] Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

[Andrew Harvey]

One feature of the pre-existing scheme of
emergency=lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform is it provides
a bit of hierarchy so the higher level ones are more likely to have more
resources compared to the lower ones.

Though in essence this page has been re-written to replace

current: emergency=lifeguard_base
new: emergency=lifeguard + building=lifeguard

current: emergency=lifeguard_tower
new: emergency=lifeguard + man_made=tower + tower:type=observation

current: emergency=lifeguard_platform
new: emergency=lifeguard + man_made=tower + tower:type=observation

So no distinction between tower and platform with the new tags?

I agree with adding man_made=tower + tower:type=observation but we should
also be adding access=private to prevent people thinking these are public
observation towers they can access.

building=lifeguard is tricky because most of the time these buildings are
specifically designed and built as lifeguard towers, but do we need a new
lifeguard value or would building=hut work (small basic shelter).

I don't think we should outright replace the
lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform values unless you can
show where they don't work well?

I've been using the established supervised=yes tag on a beach to indicate
if it is patrolled, and while all patrolled beaches are supervised=yes, I
guess this might not always be the case when the beach itself is supervised
for rules etc, but these people don't conduct water rescues. So with that
in mind I think it's okay to establish lifeguard=yes for patrolled beaches
(where personnel are on hand to conduct water rescues of swimmers) and
leave supervised=yes for the more general case of some officials monitoring
the beach area itself who may or may not enter the water.

Though ideally you'd not use lifeguard=yes but instead
lifeguard:conditional = yes @ (times) to indicate which times, days, months
it is patrolled.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 15:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Not sure if this needs to be called an RFC, as it concerns existing tags
> only, although I am suggesting deprecating several?
>
> Following on from discussion that came up during the Rescue Station
> proposal:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Rescue_Stations
>
> &
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056605.html
> ;
>
> & as also previously discussed at
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html,
>
> I would like to suggest making some changes to the multiple existing
> Lifeguard pages.
>
> Please see:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard for my
> efforts so far at improving definitions & tagging guidelines.
>
> As always, discussions welcome here or at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210113/9be2f32d/attachment-0001.htm>