Maybe we should inspire us from the power=* scheme and using a telecom tagging like (i'm looking to the idea of "power=pole" compared to power=tower) :
- Keeping the tagging as a man_made=tower (or other suitable tag) for big tower (like Eiffel tower) that have other purpose, and only tag the telecom services (like radio); - telecom=tower for all dedicated telecom tower / mast; - And using a tag for small antenna support structure. And really only tag the suitable information about the structure in sub-tags (like structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes...). Note that i use the mast name only here, as the only "known" usage of mast (that is clearly defined) is in the engineering terminology where all mast are guyed. Wouldn't it cover everything and simplify the tagging by using only 1 tag for telecom=tower (instead of man_made=tower/mast + tower:type=communication). And creating a suitable tag for small structure supporting antenna. It would also allow to continue the unification of telecom tagging under the "telecom" key ! ;-) it's just an idea, but it is useful to keep in mind that there are multiple levels of tagging here : the main key only giving "basic information" (like is it a big tower or a small antenna structure) and the sub-tags that give indepth information about the structure in question. PS: I would avoid to keep the choice of two main value and choose only either mast or tower as the big telecom structure, and that's it ! This is the main source of confusion and problems i think. ;-) Le sam. 27 oct. 2018 à 06:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 10:28, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > >> >> So where I think we are is: >> >> there is almost zero support for the notion that guy wires or not is >> critical and therefore these must not be part of definitions. (Maybe >> just Graeme.) >> > > Sorry if I sound pedantic about it - I'm not an engineer of any sort, I'm > just working off the definitions shown on the tower wiki page, & many other > spots found by a mast v tower Google search eg > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyed_mast > > A *guyed mast* is a tall thin vertical structure > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure> that depends on guy lines > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy-wire> for stability. The mast itself > has the compressive strength to support its own weight, but does not have > the shear strength to stand unsupported, and requires guy lines to resist > lateral forces such as wind loads > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_load> and keep it upright > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers > > The terms "mast" and "tower" are often used interchangeably. However, in > structural engineering terms, a tower is a self-supporting or cantilevered > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantilever> structure, while a mast > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyed_mast> is held up by stays or guys > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy-wire>. Broadcast engineers in the UK > use the same terminology. > > http://braziltowercompany.com/en/mast-or-tower.html > > When discussing telecommunication antennas, the words “mast” and “tower” > are often used interchangeably. However, structurally, they are not the > same thing. > A mast is an antenna held up by stays or guy-wires, while a tower is a > self-supporting structure or is held up on one end only. Often, the term > “tower” is used when the antenna is attached to the ground, while “mast” is > used when the antenna is mounted onto another structure like a building or > a tower. > > >> There are really multiple sorts of things we are talking about: >> >> A) towers that are more than for antennas, like Tokyo, Killesberg, >> Eiffel, and other similar things that aren't really buildings but >> which have a significant purpose beyond holding an antenna up high >> >> B) things that support antennas that are big enough that a person -- >> almost certainly a professional antenna repairer/installer or tower >> maintainer -- can climb up inside of, or stand on some top platform. >> Usually lattice or some sort of >1.5m diameter tube. >> >> C) things that support antennas that have lattice or foot platforms >> and can be climbed by people externally, sort of like a ladder, with >> a climbing harness, again only by trained people for repair/install. >> Like Rohn 65. Probably includes 30cm tubes that have climbing >> protrusions. >> >> D) things that support antennas that are small enough that no person >> can climb the outside. Ranging from 2cm diamater to maybe 20cm. >> >> In my usage >> A is a kind of tower >> >> B and C are "antenna tower" (separate from the A type tower) in the >> US. I gather in the UK B is tower and C is mast. >> >> D is a mast in the US >> >> I realize many here call A and B tower, and C and D mast. >> >> B and C are often different only in scale. For example, B coudl be >> triangular lattic that's 1.2m on a side, and C could be 0.5m on a side. >> Once you can climb inside, one you can't. But they are almost the same >> thing. >> >> Perhaps the C tubes/steps belong in D. It is arbitrary. >> >> With respect to guys, I would expect A and B to be almost never guyed, >> and C sometimes guyed (especially as it gets tall), sometimes not. D I >> would expect to be often short and not guyed, or taller and guyed. >> >> So how we want to group and label these is really arbitrary. But it >> would be good if we agree on the 4 groups of reality and then group >> them, and stop saying that guyed/not is critically important. >> > > OK, but can you translate all of that into a very simple one-line > description that a non-engineer layman, looking at an aerial photo, can say > Yep, I'll call this one a man_made=mast, but this one over here is a > man_made=tower? :-) > > Thanks > > Graeme > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
