Den 18.02.2016 12.21, skrev Martin Koppenhoefer:
"When the structure is made from steel or concrete, it is not a tower,
it could be a mast though" (maybe not the best example).
yes, clearly not the best example ;-)
It's quite obvious that "steel and concrete" can be safely removed
from the definition, as almost any structure is made of concrete or
steel (or wood or masonry), and while a masonry mast likely doesn't
exist (a chimney isn't a mast I think), wooden masts are probably
common as well (or are they all called "pole" then, and the mast is
used only in nautical context?).
Cheers,
Martin
I also don't think the material should be part of the definition.
I believe the word "mast" origines from the nautical context and meant
something like "pole" in PIE (indeed, most dictionaries say that a mast
is a pole or polelike structure etc.), and for many centuries these were
mostly made of wood. The smaller ones could stand without guy
wires/ropes, while larger ones would normally be supported.
If material is significant, it should rather be tagged.
For similar reasons, I don't think the size/length of the mast (e.g.
"small" or something more concrete) should be in the definition of a
mast. It makes more sense to tag the size - to avoid excluding large
masts or super small masts.
Use of guy wires (or ropes) may also be added as a tag instead of being
defined as a necessary condition.
Back to the topic of the first post:
Den 17.02.2016 15.42, skrev Marc Zoutendijk:
Hi all,
Currently man_made=mast has this wiki description:
"A man_made=mast is usually a small tower of only a few meters height. It is often
built from concrete or steel and only for a single application like a mobile phone base
station."
The part "only for a single application" almost always deals with
communications, but does it has to be so?
Recently someone was trying to map a number of street lamps that were really
beyond the regular lamp pole idea. Tagging them with highway=street_lamp would
not describe (fully) their function.
You can see a picture of that situation here. [1]
The location on the map is here. [2]
On the map you can see that because of this tagging:
man_made=mast
mast=lighting
they show up on the map as communication towers. Which of course looks rather
weird. (*)(**)
The design of the lighting on this square is part of the architectural design
and could probably be tagged different to do more justice to this type of
lighting.
Another type of similar lighting is here [3]
Do you think that extending the use of man_made=mast with the above used
mast=lighting (or maybe better mast:type=lighting) is a useful adddition?
Do you have any other thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Marc.
[1]
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=23&with_photo_id=93337008&order=date_desc&user=7788600
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.23768/6.83967
I believe that these rather small masts can be tagged as you did, but if
you add height=* it will be easier to decide how to render them (e.g.
one can decide to render only those above a certain height).
Otherwise, I think it's just "bad rendering" (at osm.org) to plot every
mast as a communication tower when we have different tags for those, and
I wouldn't change the tagging just because of such a rendering example.
Otherwise, it would also be possible to tag them as lamp poles but with
an approximate height=* indicating that they are larger than usual.
Anders
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
