Tagging/Security
From Map Kibera
(Difference between revisions)
Ebrelsford (Talk | contribs) (→Changes) |
Ebrelsford (Talk | contribs) (→Questions) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{| class="wikitable" border="1" | {| class="wikitable" border="1" | ||
| - | !currently in Kibera!! !!notes | + | !currently in Kibera!!proposal best-fit!!notes |
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:bar=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:bar=yes</pre> | ||
| - | | | + | |<pre>amenity=bar</pre> |
| - | | | + | |Do we need to indicate that this bar was determined especially hazardous? |
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:black_spot=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:black_spot=yes</pre> | ||
| | | | ||
| - | | | + | |Likely needs a proposal. |
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:chiefs_camp=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:chiefs_camp=yes</pre> | ||
| - | | | + | |<pre>amenity=public_building</pre> |
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:gbv_support=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:gbv_support=yes</pre> | ||
| - | | | + | |<pre>amenity=social_facility |
| + | social_facility=shelter | ||
| + | social_facility:type={victim?,gender_based_violence_victim?}</pre> | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:hatari_spot=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:hatari_spot=yes</pre> | ||
| | | | ||
| - | | | + | |<tt>What is the difference between this and <tt>security:black_spot=yes</tt>? |
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:light=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:light=yes</pre> | ||
| - | | | + | |<pre>highway=street_lamp</pre> |
| - | |Should also have <tt>security:light_type=" | + | |Should also have <tt>security:light_type="street_light</tt> or <tt>security:light_type="adopt_a_light"</tt> |
| - | Also <tt>operational_status={operational, non-operational, not instaled}</tt> | + | Also <tt>operational_status={operational, non-operational, not instaled}</tt> (sic) |
| + | <tt>highway=street_lamp</tt> has ''not'' been added to these features yet | ||
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:other=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:other=yes</pre> | ||
| Line 34: | Line 37: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|<pre>security:safe_space=yes</pre> | |<pre>security:safe_space=yes</pre> | ||
| - | | | + | |<pre>amenity=social_facility |
| + | social_facility=shelter</pre> | ||
| | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 46: | Line 50: | ||
* Add <tt>amenity=bar</tt> to nodes with <tt>security:bar=yes</tt> | * Add <tt>amenity=bar</tt> to nodes with <tt>security:bar=yes</tt> | ||
* Removed <tt>man_made=lighthouse</tt> from some lights | * Removed <tt>man_made=lighthouse</tt> from some lights | ||
| + | * Add <tt>amenity=public_building</tt> to nodes with <tt>security:chiefs_camp=yes</tt> | ||
| + | * Changed values of <tt>security:light_type</tt> to remove spaces (now <tt>adopt_a_light</tt> or <tt>street_light</tt>) | ||
=== Pre-existing Tags === | === Pre-existing Tags === | ||
| Line 65: | Line 71: | ||
** security:hatari_spot | ** security:hatari_spot | ||
** security:black_spot | ** security:black_spot | ||
| - | |||
** security:other | ** security:other | ||
** security:gbv_support | ** security:gbv_support | ||
| Line 81: | Line 86: | ||
Is there an existing proposal? | Is there an existing proposal? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * perhaps [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility social_facility] could be useful, for shelters and support? | ||
| + | * also, [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard hazard=*] is a start, but is focused almost entirely focused on drivers and existing street signs | ||
| + | * Here's a [http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-March/thread.html#35579 discussion on osm-talk] that touches on the perceived security or danger of an area. It quickly devolves into "well, it's too subjective to really map..." | ||
Current revision as of 20:10, 9 November 2010
Contents |
Security tags
| currently in Kibera | proposal best-fit | notes |
|---|---|---|
security:bar=yes | amenity=bar | Do we need to indicate that this bar was determined especially hazardous? |
security:black_spot=yes | Likely needs a proposal. | |
security:chiefs_camp=yes | amenity=public_building | |
security:gbv_support=yes | amenity=social_facility
social_facility=shelter
social_facility:type={victim?,gender_based_violence_victim?}
| |
security:hatari_spot=yes | What is the difference between this and <tt>security:black_spot=yes? | |
security:light=yes | highway=street_lamp | Should also have security:light_type="street_light or security:light_type="adopt_a_light"
Also operational_status={operational, non-operational, not instaled} (sic) highway=street_lamp has not been added to these features yet |
security:other=yes | ||
security:safe_space=yes | amenity=social_facility social_facility=shelter |
Review
Changes
- Detached street lights that were part of ways and gave them their own nodes
- Fixed obvious typos in the free text in security:description
- Add amenity=bar to nodes with security:bar=yes
- Removed man_made=lighthouse from some lights
- Add amenity=public_building to nodes with security:chiefs_camp=yes
- Changed values of security:light_type to remove spaces (now adopt_a_light or street_light)
Pre-existing Tags
- lights
- security:light
- security:light_type
- operational_status
- power=light mast
- man_made=lighthouse
- power:Light tower
- power=Adopt A Light
- Bar
- security:bar
- amenity=pub
- amenity=bar
- shop=alcohol
- Danger
- security:hatari_spot
- security:black_spot
- security:other
- security:gbv_support
- security:chiefs_camp
- security:description
- amenity=police
Fixes Needed
- Distinguish between large and small adopt-a-lights
- "temporary police" locations
- interpolate lights in series (when only start and end are marked)
Questions
Is there an existing proposal?
- perhaps social_facility could be useful, for shelters and support?
- also, hazard=* is a start, but is focused almost entirely focused on drivers and existing street signs
- Here's a discussion on osm-talk that touches on the perceived security or danger of an area. It quickly devolves into "well, it's too subjective to really map..."
