[talk-au] Tagging fire stations

Tue Oct 11 08:21:45 UTC 2022

Hi Bob,
   There are many varied stations in Australia, from the William Creek
station being just a water tanker and attached pump sitting on the
forecourt without a shed, to multi-emergency sites like Pakenham in
Victoria. There are also local headquarters (LHQ's) and training grounds
that may or may not be connected.

I would like to see an amenity=fire_station on all stations buildings if
you can't define the property boundaries which would be useful for data
extraction. I also believe LHQ's and others should be defined as
fire_station and we should look at adding opening_hours=24/7 to permanently
staffed stations. I don't think there is an opening_hours=occassional but
it would be good to say that this station is probably locked up with no one
on site.

Is there any State data we could use?

Ewen

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 05:15, Bob Cameron <bob3bob3 at skymesh.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Y'all. (So lived in Texas in a past life..)
>
> Possibly also worth noting
>
> - Many a rural/remote site has an ill defined block boundary. Some are
> tucked in corners of rec reserves and some are even on private land. (which
> affects road access tags)
>
> - Naming (on signs etc) may be problematic. Service vs Brigade vs Station
> for example. ie is it a concern that using the name from an allowed
> database contras what locals use. To add confusion I have seen a crop of
> fairly new buildings with "official" signage, but the existing (still in
> use) sheds (now with a 2nd appliance) retain the old.
>
> Cheers, Bob
> On 10/10/22 16:49, Phil Wyatt wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Well I am not too sure that the correct tagging of buildings is applied at
> all in Australia as I can only see about 200 uses of building:use=* in all
> of Oz! Seems most folks use the building tag to denote current use rather
> than initial construction intention. I am sure there are more than 200
> building adaptations across the country.
>
>
>
> I could think of several building in my state that have had second or
> third lives from the original intention and none have building:use tagging
> and there must be 10,000’s across the country. I also understand that the
> fire station tagging will likely be much harder in cities than in rural
> areas where most will be a shed on a block somewhere. Also the more recent
> trend of combining fire, ambulance and maybe SES is also something that
> sort of hinders a ‘generic’ standard approach but nodes really help for
> each of these functions across a single site with combined building use.
>
>
>
> I am inclined to think that the gold standard for a standalone fire
> station would be
>
>
>
>    - amenity=fire_station for the block of land on which it stands
>    - operator, wikidata etc and all other details on the block rather
>    than the building
>    - combined with building=fire_station (if built specifically) or
>    building:use=fire_station if its known that it was built for another purpose
>
>
>
> Sample – standalone = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102488871
>
>
>
> and the gold standard for a combined facility
>
>
>
>    - amenity=emergency_service on the block (no tagging for the  renderer
>    by using amenity=fire_station!)
>    - building tags of building=government (if not specific buildings for
>    each service)
>    - nodes for each service if there are not specific buildings dedicated
>    to each service and include all the operator, wikidate etc on these nodes
>    - If specific buildings then tag the buildings (operator, wikidata
>    etc) instead of individual nodes
>
>
>
> Sample – separate buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102327375
>
> Sample – combined buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102321688
>
>
>
> More thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Rattigan <mark at rattigan.id.au> <mark at rattigan.id.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, 10 October 2022 10:24 AM
> *To:* talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> *Cc:* phil at wyatt-family.com
> *Subject:* Re: Tagging fire stations
>
>
>
> Hi Phil
>
>
>
> I suspect that 'cleaning-up' these tags would require local knowledge for
> each location, and is certainly not as clean-cut as making sure that either
> one or the other is used.
>
>
>
> There are cases when only the building tag should be used, and some when
> only the amenity tag should be used. And others when both are appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
> The building tag is intended for the original purpose of the building -
> ie, built as/to be a fire station. A historical/defunct fire station is
> still tagged as building=fire_station, even when it's no longer in use as
> such. (The same philosophy applies to building=church, even when it's no
> longer a place of worship)
>
>
>
> The amenity=fire_station indicates a location from which fire brigades
> (currently) operate.
>
>
>
> For example, the DFES Education and Heritage Centre in Perth could be
> tagged as building=fire_station because that was its original purpose - it
> was originally No. 1 Fire Station. It couldn't be amenity=fire_station as
> it's not used as a fire station.
>
>
>
> There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of buildings
> that weren't originally built to be fire stations.
>
>
>
>
>
> As for the amenity and whether it's an area or a point - it could possibly
> depend on whether the facility is solely for a fire brigade.
>
> For example, my local emergency service building houses all of Police,
> Ambulance, Fire&Rescue, RFS and SES. It seems to have the following tags:
>
>
>
> For the building (perhaps this is incorrect though!)
>
> building=government
>
> amenity=fire_station
>
>
>
> Within this building there are separate nodes:
>
> 1: emergency=ambulance_station (for Ambulance)
>
> 2: amenity=fire_station (for RFS)
>
> 3: amenity=emergency_service and emergency=ses_station (for SES)
>
> 4: amenity=police
>
> (I thought there used to be a node tagged amenity=fire_station for
> Fire&Rescue, but it's no-longer.)
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 4
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100
>
> From: "Phil Wyatt" <phil at wyatt-family.com>
>
> To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project
> Message-ID: <000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I am looking for my next tagging clean-up project and wondered about
> amenity
> and building tags for fire stations
>
>
>
> amenity=fire_station -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station -
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq
>
>
>
> building=fire_station -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station -
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAr
>
>
>
> This is partly in response to an issue logged for the ID editor requesting
> a
> preset for fire stations buildings.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/603
>
>
>
> There is already an ID preset for 'Fire Station' that uses the
> amenity=fire_station key/value but it did get me looking at the differences
> and how its been applied in Australia. There is a clear mix of buildings
> and
> amenity tagging on both station areas and buildings, and some with both
> tags!
>
>
>
>
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/tags/amenity=fire_s
> tation#combinations
>
>
>
> Should it always be the case that the 'plot' on which the fire station
> building resides is the 'amenity' and the 'building' should be separate
> within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in the wiki's.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20221011/2ddd7870/attachment-0001.htm>