Talk:Key:military service

Gendarme

When creating the values table, I included the Gendarme under military_service=police. Is this appropriate or should they be listed as a separate service? Casey boy (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for creating all that!

I'm not certain whether =police should be a value or not, but happy for input from others?

As for the Gendarmes, I would need input from somebody in France as to whether they are considered military or civilian? Same thing :would apply to Italy with their multiple levels of "Police" --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think military_service=police should be listed, because it has never been used and it was not included in the proposal. If someone wants to make another proposal to suggest specific vales for military_service, this could be discussed. Otherwise, only the common military service branches mentioned in the proposal should be listed for now, and then if lots of people choose to use military_service=police it could be added later. I suspect that the Gendarmes are usually amenity=police rather than landuse=military but someone will need to check. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I took the services listed here. It's not like we're just making up services, we're just ensuring the tags are documented for when people want to use them for real things. If we follow your logic, we should also remove several others that are listed and definitely add joint_forces back - as they were/weren't in the proposal. Casey boy (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That list at wikipedia was only added in April 2020, less than a year ago, without citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_branch&type=revision&diff=950814974&oldid=950636358 - and yes, I'm willing to remove all the ones that were not mentioned directly in the proposal, since right now this page has an "Approved" status which is misleading if most of the values were not mentioned in the approved proposal. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've posted in the amenity=police discussion page about the possible usefulness of military_service=police as there are quite a few militarised police forces with civilian duties. I note that these forces do, in fact, often use landuse=military in conjunction with amenity=police Casey boy (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:JeroenvanderGun - I see you've added gendarmerie as "in use". According to Taginfo, there are currently no uses of it (instead, I believe, they're tagged as police). Also, I wonder if military_service=police would be better? Is gendarmerie a global term for a militarised police force? Casey boy (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The Netherlands Armed Forces consist of a navy (Marine), an army (Landmacht), an air_force (Luchtmacht) and a gendarmerie (Marechaussee). The latter does not yet show up in TagInfo because I started using it today, previously military_service=marechaussee was used (or just landuse=military with no military_service=* at all). Gendarmerie is the generic global word for this type of organisation, Marechaussee is the name of the specific one in the Netherlands (see Wikipedia). A gendarmerie is a specific type of military police. I don't know if military_service=police makes sense internationally (it is currently unused), but for the Netherlands it seems unnecessarily vague. --JeroenvanderGun (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I suppose gendarmerie is better as it is separate from military police who only police the military (and, I think, these would normally fall under their parent military branch). Casey boy (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Gendarmerie General Command of Turkiye is working as the sub branch of Turkish Armed Forces and Ministry of Interior. I've decided to use landuse=military with amenity=police. Thanks for guiding. --Orkutmuratyilmaz (talk) 15:24, 23 Nov 2023 (GMT+3)

Special Forces

Do special forces warrant their own tag value (i.e. military_service=special_forces)? Or are they regarded as part of their parent service (i.e. SBS = Royal Navy, SAS = British Army)? Are there examples where special forces are distinct from another service? Casey boy (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would include them under their parent service --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Joint bases

The wikipedia article for Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam is not a great example of a joint base because the two parts are pretty clearly separate: there is a navy base (Pearl Harbor) next to an Air Force base (Hickam) - which is mapped with a separate feature. Can we find an example where the same facilites are shared, rather than 2 bases which are next to each other and have been officially merged (though in practice are 2 separate things)? I suggest mapping these with a semi-colon, since "joint_base" as a value doesn't tell you if it is army;marines, or navy;air_force etc. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's really for those bases that are actually named as xxx Joint Base eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_base#List_of_joint_bases for the US. --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Although, I generally agree, those bases are marked as being controlled by one specific service Casey boy (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think removing joint_forces is wrong. Maybe the example I gave wasn't accurate (perhaps it was a command rather than base name) but bases can be joint forces. Additionally I think it works well when the military site is run directly by the military as a department, rather than an individual branch. Examples that come to mind are The Pentagon and MoD sites (UK) that aren't run by specific services. Casey boy (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Pentagon isn't run by any particular branch, so it would not really benefit from a military_service=* tag, except perhaps by listing all of them, e.g. military_service=army;air_force;marines;navy;space_force;etc. - this would explicitly show which services are in the building. If you only use a value like "joint_base" then it's not clear if it's just 2 branches or all of them. Also, I don't think the Pentagon is a military=base - it's an office building only, and not even mapped as landuse=military at the moment but as an office=government + military=office: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/89605 --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea (as was in the accepted proposal) is "joint_forces" not "joint_base". The tag value, therefore, doesn't need to apply only to a military=base but could be used on a military=office like The Pentagon. I also think you've exactly made the point: if it isn't run by one branch specifically, then it's a joint effort. This value demonstrates that. Casey boy (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are the Royal Marines a separate military service or tagged as part of the navy?

The page mentions that sometimes the Marines maybe part of the navy, while in some countries they are considered a service or branch, with their own bases or facilities. How are Royal Marines organized? Do they have bases that would be tagged military_service=marines or do they share facilities with the rest of the military_service=navy? --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Separate bases, according to this: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations. They could sometimes be an enclave off the side of a Royal Navy base, but they have their own name. --Fizzie41 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned the Royal Marines because, whilst technically part of the Royal Navy, they have their own bases and chain of command. The head of the Royal Marines (Commandant General Royal Marines) reports only to the Fleet Commander. Whilst technically part of the Royal Navy, it would be incredibly odd to map a Royal Marines base with military_service=navy rather than military_service=marines. I think Jeisenbe's marines edit made this more ambiguous but rather than removing the note about Royal Marines completely it would be better to revert to the original wording or similar.

I've changed the wording to "Tagged when operated as a separate service. This tag may also be used if the marines are part of a country's Navy but have large operational autonomy, such as their own bases and command structure (e.g. Royal Marines)." I think this explains the Royal Marines (and other marine services based on them) quite well - they aren't, technically, a separate service but it would be very odd to describe a Royal Marine base (which starts with a RM prefix, rather than HMS etc.) as Navy Casey boy (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(How) do we tag subgroups?

Do we use specific tags for infantry, artillery, anti-aircraft, submarines etc that might have their own bases and training areas, or do we simply tag them generically as military_service=army/navy/air_force? -501ghost (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

military_service=* is for the top-level service branch (only). Perhaps sub-tagging could be introduced for units though. Maybe military_service=army + army=infantry, or something else like military_branch=infantry or military_service:branch=infantry. Casey boy (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

When this proposal & also military=base went through, I'm sure that we did discuss expanding it exactly as you have suggested. With military=base, I did suggest:

I'm now thinking that it would be a good idea to also say what functions a Base carries out, possibly in the format

military=base + base=* with options being

Operational - a base that houses "fighting" forces

Headquarters - Command Centre only that doesn't have operational troops posted to it (beyond MPs) e.g. The Pentagon

Logistics - storage, supply & transport depots

Training - military training schools / establishments"

so it would probably be a good idea to raise that as a new RFC now, then also expand military_service=* as you both suggest! --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I found a useful Wikipedia page that we could use as guidance for military_service=* tagging:  Military branch. The specifications I initially suggested could/should then be tagged with a different key (TBD) to keep military_service=* simple (something something KISS principle). -501ghost (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking at that page this morning myself! I've now raised it on the Tagging list to see if we need an actual proposal or can just update these pages as we think fit? https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-July/064994.html--Fizzie41 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Have now created: service_branch=*. How does that fit in with your various ideas? --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)