Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-17 8:01 GMT+01:00 José G Moya Y. :

>
> Martin, I don't think authorities welcome a detailed map of inner areas in
> stations/airports. They will show a security concern.
>


I guess this will depend on many factors, and will differ between different
locations. I didn't want to encourage anyone to break the law, but if it is
legal in your context to publish the details of the separation between the
free areas and the areas requiring to pay a fare (i.e. behind the gates /
turnstiles), provided you are mapping in a closed system context, if you
can meet all these requirements, it would be desirable to map it.

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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[François Lacombe]

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-11-16 18:18 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> I would also like to point out that tower:type=communication_tower is
>> redundant.  Tower:type=communication is sufficient.
>>
> they are describing (physically) very different features, that only have
> the same or similar function from a specific abstract point of view (radio
> communication, actually broadcast = oneway communication). As they are both
> only about radio communication, I find the name generally not well chosen.
>

Just my 2 cts without any ultimate solution:

To go in Mark direction, I think that man_made=* should be usage agnostic.
A tower is commonly described as a really longer vertical infrastructure
compared to its width.
Human can usually go inside, instead of a mast.
The same comparison could be done with building vs cabinets : human can
only go inside the first.

It can be completed by structure=*, material=*, colour, design...

Theoretically, usage can be completed by tower=*, mast=*, pole=* like done
with street_cabinet=* with well known values like : telecom, power,
surveillance, water, and so on to stop confuse usage and structure inside
one single key.
Just beware of power towers or lighting poles to support telecom antennas

Anyway, telecoms (communications, telecommunications, mobile phones, why
not radio broadcast ?) should go in telecom=* key
communication=*, telecommunications=*, communication:telecom=* may be not
used any more for sake of consistency.

To be continued


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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:18:14 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.
> 
> 2017-11-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Bradley :
> 
> > I also like the idea of having all towers under one tag, for the same
> > reason as marc marc.
> >
> 
> can you expand, which kind of "all towers" you mean here. Is this including 
> light
> towers, water towers, power towers, bell towers, air traffic control towers, 
> cooling
> towers, drop towers? Are you going by the name? E.g.
> there's the tower of London, but it is tagged as a castle currently, would 
> you suggest
> to retag it as tower?
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370870741
> 
> 
> 
> > I would also like to point out that tower:type=communication_tower is
> > redundant.  Tower:type=communication is sufficient.
> >
> >
> they are describing (physically) very different features, that only have the 
> same or
> similar function from a specific abstract point of view (radio communication, 
> actually
> broadcast = oneway communication). As they are both only about radio
> communication, I find the name generally not well chosen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin


You know, after giving it some more thought, I'm not sure what I think.  Forget 
I said it.

Mark

 


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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-17 17:22 GMT+01:00 Mark Bradley :

> You know, after giving it some more thought, I'm not sure what I think.
> Forget I said it.



I've also been re-thinking about it, and maybe the best is to abandon
man_made=tower for everything that can be better described with a more
specific tag, e.g. man_made=water_tower (established), lighthouse
(established),  communications_tower (established), cooling_tower
(deprecated but used 400 times), watchtower (not used, but watch_tower has
3 occurences), etc.

I'm setting up a proposal,

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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[marc marc]

Le 17. 11. 17 à 17:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> I'm setting up a proposal,

Please read Francois's reply.
How to map a tower where the usage is unknwon or multiple ?
I find better to have a "step by step" tag
You see a tower ? you map a tower.
You see how it's used ? you add a tag for its usage.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-17 17:35 GMT+01:00 marc marc :

> Le 17. 11. 17 à 17:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> > I'm setting up a proposal,
>
> Please read Francois's reply.
> How to map a tower where the usage is unknwon or multiple ?
>


you can still use man_made=tower if unknown, "multiple" will not really
happen, or mappers will decide which is the significant class.


> I find better to have a "step by step" tag
> You see a tower ? you map a tower.
>


yes, just that "tower" is very generic and there are many things that all
are some kind of towers, but do not have to be in the same main tag in OSM
(and often aren't). You see a road? That's not enough for mapping in OSM,
you also have to say which kind of road. Same with towers.


You see how it's used ? you add a tag for its usage.



+1, usage is a completely different thing and I completely agree with
François. man_made=lighthouse, amenity=restaurant.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

[Max]

On 2017년 11월 17일 08:01, José G Moya Y. wrote:
Martin, I don't think authorities welcome a detailed map of inner areas 
in stations/airports. They will show a security concern.


This was never a concern in OSM and it hopefully never will be. There 
can't be (self)censorship.


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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[François Lacombe]

Thank you Marc


2017-11-17 19:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> yes, just that "tower" is very generic and there are many things that all
> are some kind of towers, but do not have to be in the same main tag in OSM
> (and often aren't). You see a road? That's not enough for mapping in OSM,
> you also have to say which kind of road. Same with towers.
>

We're not so far from roads in my logic.
highway=* is equivalent to tower=* which are equivalent to street_cabinet=*
in my previous mail.

Highways are missing a man_made=road, while we are trying to discuss
man_made=tower here. Should we forget it ?

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