[Talk-GB] Fortifications

[Timothy Noname]

Hi Casper,

I also noticed this problem during updates to the south west coast path. A
lot of beaches and towns were showing as part of a Military Area  with the
red hash marks to keep people away. I messaged the user in January and they
seem to have stopped adding historic things but didn't reply.

I've been changing most of the items to "Historic Site" or using the life
cycle prefixes if something remains. But there are still an awful lot of
small areas and bunkers that I haven't done yet.

Tim

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:52 PM Casper Kersten <casperkersten1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello fellow mappers,
>
> After my successful proposal of defensive_works=* I started mapping more
> fortifications. This led me to two interesting cases that I would like to
> share with you.
>
> The first case is the gun batteries at Gibraltar. Some gun emplacements
> there are tagged as building=bunker, fixme=needs describing/refining,
> name=battery. To avoid using the name=* tag for descriptions I suggest
> retagging them to building=bunker + defensive_works=battery. I would also
> like to add the defensive_works=battery tag to the other batteries in the
> area. If anyone knows if any of these batteries are still operational, I
> could also add a military=* tag to them. Opinions and suggestions are more
> than welcome.
>
> The second case is the type=site super-relation "WW2 Defences of Cornwall"
> with almost 600 relation members. This relation seems to be a violation of
> the "Relations are not categories" guideline. Though most of its
> sub-relations seem genuine enough, nearly every individual object contains
> a descriptive name=* tag, which violates the "Names are not for
> descriptions" guideline. On top of that, some objects are completely
> mistagged, like an abandoned search light that's mapped as a bunker and a
> WWII checkpoint that most likely doesn't even exist anymore. I think that
> much of the content in this super-relation needs to be redone, and some of
> it (like the super-relation itself) may even be deleted after review of the
> content. I can also send the original mapper(s) a friendly message to
> direct them to OpenHistoricalMap. OSM is not OpenWW2Map, after all.
>
> Some relevant links:
>
> Bunkers at Gibraltar -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.11328/-5.34622
> The defensive_works=* tag -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:defensive_works
>
> WW2 Defences of Cornwall - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13367998
> A WW2 roadblock (mis)tagged as military checkpoint -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9481361873
> A WW2 searchlight (mis)tagged as military bunker -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9139877836
>
> Relations are not categories -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories
> Names are not for descriptions -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
> Verifiability - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
>
> Best regards,
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220506/d815d0e0/attachment.htm>