[Tagging] Feature proposal - Remotely controlled devices - RFC

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

Just beside street cabinets proposal, I found interesting to introduce
remotely controlled devices.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remotely_controlled_devices

As explained in this small proposal, our goal is to describe in which ways
operators may interact with their devices (or networks, or any
infrastructures).

As you may see in examples, a large field of things is concerned.
For sake of simplicity, information accessibility and verification, only
physical layers (basically, antennas, wires, boxes) are described here.
Only the terminal part, physically connected to the device, matters here.
No control centres locations, no whole command & control networks exposed.

For now, the tag has only been used by myself.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/remotely_controllable

Some values may miss in this document, feel free to give feedback on Talk
page or add pictures in front of examples.


Thank you.

*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[John Packer]

I agree with using the key "aerodrome" to specify further the type of the
aerodrome (instead of aerodrome:type=* or type=*).

Related to this:
An airport is a special kind of aerodrome, and I think it is poorly
documented on the wiki how to tag it.
Looking at taginfo, it becomes clear that international aerodromes can be
tagged with aerodrome=international. I assume most (if not all)
international aerodromes are public airports.
Private aerodromes (common inside some farms in Brazil) would be
aerodrome=private, and military aerodromes would be aerodrome=military. So
far so good.

It isn't as clear how to tag a normal public *airport.*
Is there some consensus on this?
I suppose a domestic airport could be tagged with aerodrome=domestic
aerodrome=public could also work, as long as it becomes clear that
aerodrome=international is also a public airport.

There are other classifications of aerodromes present on taginfo that are
not documented.



2014-06-30 12:54 GMT-03:00 Fernando Trebien :

> Hello,
>
> I've recently reviewed some aerodromes in southern Brazil and,
> following some advice in the wiki [1], I've replaced the "type" tag
> with an "aerodrome" tag [2]. Do you agree that this is correct? Should
> we update tagging recommendations for aerodromes [3] and aeroways [4]
> in the wiki?
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:type
> [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/aerodrome
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Daerodrome
> [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aeroways
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "Nullius in verba."
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-02 18:32 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> An airport is a special kind of aerodrome, and I think it is poorly
> documented on the wiki how to tag it.
>


>From previous discussions I think I remember that it isn't clear what an
"airport" is. Most if not all our "aerodromes" are probably airports, and
also the helipads are probably airports according to the wikipedia
definition of airport.




> Looking at taginfo, it becomes clear that international aerodromes can be
> tagged with aerodrome=international. I assume most (if not all)
> international aerodromes are public airports.
>


What does an airport make "international"? If there once has flewn an
aircraft into another country? Or must there be a scheduled flight into
another country? Or a certain amount of such scheduled flights?



> Private aerodromes (common inside some farms in Brazil) would be
> aerodrome=private, and military aerodromes would be aerodrome=military. So
> far so good.
>


is "private" about the ownership? Have a look at Fraport AG, the operator
of Frankfurt Airport (biggest German airport) and traded at Frankfurt Stock
Exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraport  it is both, publicly and
privately owned (majority is public ownership currently), would the
Frankfurt Airport become private in OSM if the government decided to sell a
bigger share of it?
"airport=international;private"?

Previous discussions ended up with the conclusion that it would be better
to have the details mapped (e.g. number and size/shape of runways,
encompassing polygon (!) for the airport itself) so that you could
elaborate this information to estimate the importance. Unfortunately it
seems quite expensive to do this on the fly, hence the missing progress in
airport rendering at low zoom scales so far. That's why I agree with you
that some basic tags could help the renderer (e.g. osm-carto) to achieve
better rendering.

Even a very simple metric (airports bigger than x and mapped as an area)
might already improve the current rendering situation.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[John Packer]

Interesting questions!

The way I see it, we don't need to get into the details of who owns it
(whether it is a company or the government), but classify according to it's
use.

When I say airport, I mean the kind of aerodrome the average person can
use, usually with some stores and airflight companies.
We could use "aerodrome=domestic" for normal airports instead of
"aerodrome=public", to avoid the need to consider who owns it.
Most international airports in Brazil actually have "internacional" in it's
official name. It means they have regular international flights.
There are some "normal" airports that may receive international flights
when *needed*, but they aren't known as international and I don't think
they should be tagged as such (though they are classified as "international
alternative" by the government).

In my POV, an aerodrome with "aerodrome=private" would be an aerodrome used
exclusively for transporting goods or people related to a company, or or
privately owned by a big farm. I think ideally these shouldn't be tagged as
"aerodrome=international", even if it's the case.

I believe "aerodrome=military" is self-explanatory, i.e. used for military
operations and/or research.

I'm not sure about other types of aerodrome=*. I don't know that much about
this.
I'm sure there can be other cases that don't easily fit with what I
mentioned.



2014-07-02 14:05 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-07-02 18:32 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
>
> An airport is a special kind of aerodrome, and I think it is poorly
>> documented on the wiki how to tag it.
>>
>
>
> From previous discussions I think I remember that it isn't clear what an
> "airport" is. Most if not all our "aerodromes" are probably airports, and
> also the helipads are probably airports according to the wikipedia
> definition of airport.
>
>
>
>
>> Looking at taginfo, it becomes clear that international aerodromes can be
>> tagged with aerodrome=international. I assume most (if not all)
>> international aerodromes are public airports.
>>
>
>
> What does an airport make "international"? If there once has flewn an
> aircraft into another country? Or must there be a scheduled flight into
> another country? Or a certain amount of such scheduled flights?
>
>
>
>> Private aerodromes (common inside some farms in Brazil) would be
>> aerodrome=private, and military aerodromes would be aerodrome=military. So
>> far so good.
>>
>
>
> is "private" about the ownership? Have a look at Fraport AG, the operator
> of Frankfurt Airport (biggest German airport) and traded at Frankfurt Stock
> Exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraport  it is both, publicly and
> privately owned (majority is public ownership currently), would the
> Frankfurt Airport become private in OSM if the government decided to sell a
> bigger share of it?
> "airport=international;private"?
>
> Previous discussions ended up with the conclusion that it would be better
> to have the details mapped (e.g. number and size/shape of runways,
> encompassing polygon (!) for the airport itself) so that you could
> elaborate this information to estimate the importance. Unfortunately it
> seems quite expensive to do this on the fly, hence the missing progress in
> airport rendering at low zoom scales so far. That's why I agree with you
> that some basic tags could help the renderer (e.g. osm-carto) to achieve
> better rendering.
>
> Even a very simple metric (airports bigger than x and mapped as an area)
> might already improve the current rendering situation.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rendering change: buildings within highway areas

[Georg Feddern]

Am 01.07.2014 12:34, schrieb Matthijs Melissen:
On 1 July 2014 11:25, Janko Mihelic' > wrote:


If I'm right, this will mostly affect pedestrian areas
(highway=pedestrian + area=yes) that have buildings mapped over them.


Yes, that's correct.


Did you consider buildings that are - at least partly - raised on 
pillars/columns with a pedestrian area underneath?


Georg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Janko Mihelić]

I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what if one
aerodrome has a military and a public part?

I would rather use separate tags like:
aeroway=aerodrome
access=private/public
landuse=military
international_flights=yes/no
...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging