User talk:Fizzie41/Military Cadets

All thoughts and suggestions welcome so please feel free! --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not militarily inclined, but it seems limiting to address this towards the "buildings" that these groups use. Maybe that's an initial thrust, that's OK, but this WILL go more broad than that. So, I think "thinking broadly" is a better place to start to develop this than "simply buildings." My two cents, take with one grain of salt. Stevea (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that! As I mentioned, when I was looking at military bases, I spotted quite a few Cadet groups & started to wonder how to map them as there are currently no options - which is somewhat surprising, when you consider how many of them there are? I was thinking just a node to say "This group is here", but certainly happy to try to expand it beyond that level. What thoughts are you having about expanding the idea? Cadets won't really have training areas, firing ranges etc of their own, & will usually only have 1-2 buildings, either shared or sometimes exclusive to them. --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Group names

I think it might make sense to align with the values in military_service=* and save the specific group name for the operator tag. So, for example, the UK's Sea Cadets would be something like:
club=military_cadets
military_service=navy
operator=Sea Cadets
name=* (local unit name)
I concede, however, that we don't want to make it seem like the cadets are part of the military, so maybe the military_service=* tag is inappropriate - but the values are useful. Casey boy (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both the idea and the concern! It's a good way to say what "type" of cadet group they are, but, as you say, they're NOT military. Maybe take the military reference out and have them just as either service or branch? Same thing as listing them under the Military values on the Map Features page - it's a good place to keep reference but again, they're not military? I do like "military_cadets" though - copied! --Fizzie41 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be at least as careful as the organizations themselves and the military itself are. At least in the USA, the version of these here are careful to NOT say they are "part of" the military (go out of their way to make a distinction, really). Rather they talk about inspiring good values like patriotism and leadership. THEN, the military itself has its own "codifications" of who these people are and what they mean to the military per se once the graduates approach or are truly inside of the actual military, a different set of rules about why they are there (and hoping to accomplish) apply. Stevea (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, & exactly the same thing here - they state very specifically that they are a youth training and development organisation only, NOT part of the Australian Defence Force in any way. As to what they mean to the military as cadets? Nothing at all! Except a potential source of recruits a few years down the track. --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cadet buildings

If we go with club=military_cadets then the current recommended tagging scheme would be:
amenity=community_centre
community_centre=club_home
community_centre:for=military_cadet (n.b. that tag encourages the singular rather than plural form)
operator=* (e.g. Sea Cadets)
Though this scheme does seem a little odd if the building is used exclusively by the cadet force. Casey boy (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If they were using a Council owned community centre that is available for use by different groups, but the cadets were only there one night a week, then I'd agree with having the building tagged as amenity=community_centre, with a node on it with the cadet details. If it is their building alone, with no-one else using it, then no, as you say, that doesn't make any sense --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Building Value

There are many exceptions, but building=* is least controversial when it describes the building type (house, church, retail, industrial, whatever) rather than its purpose. Using building=cadet is likely to cause strong objections unless you can point to a specific architectural style common to all cadet buildings across the world.

It is also redundant to have building=cadet when other tags you propose specify that cadets are based in the building.

--Brian de Ford (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand and agree with you about "style" of building. Of 4 cadet groups that I know of in this local area, one uses a Council community-centre one night a week; one has their own building (which is actually a large shed!), exclusively for their use, on the grounds of a secondary school; and the other two, separate Army and Air Force cadet units, share a building on the grounds of the local Army Reserve unit. So no, there is nothing you could point to and say There is a cadet building.

However, on other proposals, I have seen comments that for data purposes, we should try to specify that these are "cadet" buildings so someone can then research and say that there are xxx number of cadet buildings in Australia. I guess it really depends if we're mapping for a map, or mapping for data? --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think building=cadet would be a bad idea. Buildings are supposed to be more generic than that and if the cadets are based inside a community centre or school hall or similar, then the building tag should reflect that instead. I do note that there is a building=clubhouse tag in use, primarily in the UK but in other countries too, but it is currently undocumented and not widely used (619 uses). Casey boy (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we should go with that either. The recommended use (as I mentioned above) for club houses is the amenity=community_centre and building=yes approach. Though it appears that this wasn't without controversy. I guess the idea is that a club is a community. Personally, I'm not a fan. Casey boy (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. As above, a "community centre" is there for multiple groups to be able to use, while a clubhouse belongs to one group only, with nobody else allowed. As per the mailing list comments, amenity=clubhouse has a lot going for it, as that could be used for a lot of situations apart from Cadets e.g. sporting clubs, "Scouts" etc --Fizzie41 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)