[Tagging] Military lifecycle

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 19:44, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 20 Jan 2021, at 06:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The same questions apply to the 8000 examples of military=trench?
>
>
> a trench is a physical feature, and the question is not whether it is used
> but whether it could be used (IMHO).
>

Well yes, I guess they could if Belgium was planning on attacking France
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12BK, or Norway was expecting a sea-borne
invasion https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12BL!

Presumably active ones along the Korean DMZ, I have no problems with
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12BM, but I think the WW1 / 2 versions should
all probably be marked as historic: (Sorry, Paul! :-))

military=ammunition could be more verbose what it is about. “ammunition” is
> not a landuse, but the combination with landuse=military suggests the tag
> is about a landuse
>

Used to map ammunition dumps mainly, some current, some, once again, dating
back to WW2, with a lot marked as abandoned / disused.

There's a couple of uses on Ordnance Factories i.e. where ammunition is
made, & while there is undoubtedly military ammunition there, I'm not sure
if it should be tagged this way?

I was planning on raising it as a separate post, but there is also
military=bunker + bunker:type=munitions - in some cases, the area is
military=ammunition, & each bunker is also mapped as a munitions bunker. In
one case, the mapper has mapped every bunker as military=ammunition! (Over
a third of all uses!)

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 00:29, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 03:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> During discussions on the Base proposal, mention was made of
>> military=ammunition, which I hadn't spotted prior to that time. When I had
>> a look at some of the ammunition locations shown on OT, I immediately
>> noticed that a number of them are currently tagged as landuse=military +
>> military=ammunition, but also abandoned=yes / ruins=yes etc - i.e. they are
>> no longer in use.
>>
>
> Could some of those be an attempt at marking old firing ranges which are
> no longer used but which may still have unexploded munitions?
>

Some are ammunition bunkers on ex-military airfields

Or even dumps for munitions that are past their use-by date but which have
> not
> been properly disposed of?
>

Doesn't appear so?


> Both would be hazardous areas.
>

Certainly would, but I don't think they should still be "military" if the
military doesn't own / use them?

Would come under the new hazard tag, which includes =unexploded_ordnance.

Thanks

Graeme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210121/41eb5dfd/attachment.htm>