Template talk:Mapping Military Sites
External Discussions
For discussion, please see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-January/058627.html
Ambox type
There is some debate on the mailing list about which ambox type this template should use:
- warning
 | Warning: mapping military installations is welcomed in OpenStreetMap but may be prohibited by local law. Before mapping potentially sensitives sites such as these, please be aware of Section I b of the OSMF Terms of Use: "You are responsible for your own actions", "OSMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification. ". |
- caution
 | Caution: mapping military installations is welcomed in OpenStreetMap but may be prohibited by local law. Before mapping potentially sensitives sites such as these, please be aware of Section I b of the OSMF Terms of Use: "You are responsible for your own actions", "OSMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification. ". |
- notice
 | Mapping military installations is welcomed in OpenStreetMap but may be prohibited by local law. Before mapping potentially sensitives sites such as these, please be aware of Section I b of the OSMF Terms of Use: "You are responsible for your own actions", "OSMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification. ". |
Currently two votes for "caution" and two for "notice". My preference (already included) is for "caution" - the ambox then represents what this is: a caution. I think this is the appropriate "severity". Casey boy (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- I edited mentions which one is which - hopefully this is OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Mateusz Konieczny - that does make it clearer! I actually think it would be a good idea to change the "Caution:" bit at the start to match whichever ambox we end up going with. Casey boy (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I would prefer last one, as it is a part of an article, not indicator of problem with the article like one of Category:Wiki maintenance templates (note: I commented already, though without linking to the category) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Who likes which version?
To keep it easy & clear, I thought we could show it as a simple list of who prefers which level of notice?
Please add you name below
Options are
1. Pink + Warning
2. Yellow + Caution
3. Grey + Notice
- Mateusz
Should we create an accompanying page?
I wonder if we should create an accompanying page to provide a bit more detail about the legality of mapping military sites (if it doesn't already exist) and link to it in this warning? Casey boy (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me, and I am curious about legal state of that (though I am not planning to work on creating it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we need a full page to discuss it, or could we just link back to the appropriate Tagging list thread https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-January/058627.html, which quotes the reply I received from Legal group? As to the actual legal situation? I don't think anybody knows for sure, & won't know until it is actually tested in court? & as I mentioned previously, that would be a real mess - The Somewhereian Govt takes me, an Australian who has never visited Somewhereia, to a British court, on a charge of breaking Somewhereian security laws? I can already see the lawyers rubbing their hands together with glee! --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Link to that would be fine. If someone wants to spend time on creating such overview it would be fine though it is not something that we urgently need Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- The reason I mooted a new page was to tie in some of the various discussion threads. For example, I noted the forum thread linked to from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:military#.22please.2C_please_do_not_mark_military_areas.22.3F talking about the legality in Israel. I also felt bad just replacing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military#legality with this banner without perhaps having somewhere else to elaborate on. I'm OK creating the page, but perhaps it's not necessary. Casey boy (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
But isn't use of the word "legality" then going to stir up the arguments that were raised when I included much the same thing in the military bases proposal? Following your lead, & thinking as I'm typing though, how about if we stick a couple of new paragraphs up the top of this page "Arguments for / against mapping" with copies of the Legal groups message as For; then Against can hold copies of, or links to the Israel discussion, & also the bit that was added to the main military page with reference to US & Chinese law? That should keep everybody happy, shouldn't it? (Sniggering as he types, as he knows that's an impossibility! :-)) --Fizzie41 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)