[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - defensive structures

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

I agree with Georg, there is no need for a new top level value in the 
historic key or a new defensive_structure key, I even doubt of there is 
any "gap". the proposal just creates more ambiguity with existing 
tagging schemes.
All the examples given are specific terms for objects that fit under 
existing tags.
We don't use new tags for specific walls in or constructions in non 
historic buildings either like sheer wall, dividing wall etc... . If 
there is really a need to describe or use specific terms one can use 
description=* or even in some cases one of the name keys.

A good example f.i is the "Dodengang" in Kaaskerke, Belgium 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/298214152). These trenches are tagged 
with footpath as cutting, perfectly plausible and clear to me in 
combination with the name tags used. We do have trench=*, to be combined 
with military=trench, so it would be perfectly to use key=trench also on 
historical=memorial in this case.

The examples given in the proposal:
- a bastion, crownwork, lunette, hornwork, rampart are just walls (with 
ditches or trenches, embankments, gorge should only be used on natural 
features), use historic=building or fort, barrier=wall and 
description="historically called bastion" and use the Wikidata and 
Wikipedia keys for more context. Use relation:site eventually to relate 
them;
- a caponier is a building and a trench historic=building, 
highway=footway, cutting=yes, trench=* again with description and use 
the Wikidata and Wikipedia keys for more context;
- a cavalier is just a building with more levels, enough tags (hsitoric, 
building, ruins, building:levels etc...) to tag those again with 
description and use the Wikidata and Wikipedia keys for more context;
- a glacis is an embankment ...
etc...
I can't find any gap.

Our wiki says explicitly about historical key:

where the contributor prefers to define the type of structure in 
additional tags, then it is possible to use a generic value for the tag 
historic=*. See, for example:

     historic=archaeological_site
     historic=building
     historic=industrial
     historic=ruins

For the non-historic tagged structures we also have heritage=* and for 
active use or not one can use start_date and military:end_date and/or 
disused:military. Like for military structures in countries where wars 
just ended recently many bunkers still exist, not actively used but 
still retained in case the troubles start again. So what does the use of 
military=* tags only on "in active use" means ? Many of these bunkers 
are used by the police f.i. during peacefull periods for road blocks. 
That doesn't make them less military though.

Greetings,

Bert Araali

However this

On 07/07/2021 13:54, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
>
> On 07-07-2021 12:33, Georg wrote:
>> But they might also
>> not qualify for historic=* as they are too young or of too little impact
>> on history.
> Having defensive_structure as top-level tag does make it possible to
> freely judge the need for military=* (active function) and historic=*
> (or in some cases both!). The documentation would then need to be very
> clear that defensive_structure=* is not a sub-tag of
> historic=defensive_structure of course.
>
> Also for bunkers recently no longer in use, disused:military=bunker
> could be used in the absence of historic=*.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210707/ffc4f1c9/attachment.htm>