I'm still opposed to this proposal: This proposal is quite long and complicated-looking. I believe it would be better to clarify exactly what tags are new: for example, "support", "material" etc are existing tags, not new tags. Please update the "Proposal" section at the top to clearly state the tags that would be added, and the tags that would be deprecated.
I believe there are 2 tags that are being deprecated: pipeline=marker and marker=stone. I don't see the benefit in moving the first from the pipeline=* key, where it's really clear that "this is a marker for a pipeline" to a new marker key, where the values will be mixed between power, communications, pipeline and fire hydrand features (and possibly others in the future). I also think that it's not reasonable to deprecate marker=stone without clearly discussing what tag is supposed to replace it. According to taginfo, almost all uses of marker=stone are combined with boundary=marker, so these are boundary marker stones, "a robust physical marker that identifies the start of a land boundary or the change in a boundary, especially a change in direction of a boundary." - Joseph Eisenberg On 9/6/19, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > The proposal to introduce marker=* key for all kind of utility markers is > about to be voted. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal > > All previous comments have been solved and any new one will be welcome. > > Currently, more than 6k object are described with undocumented marker=stone > which conflicts a bit with proposed marker classification. > As those are mainly (to be determined on each situation) highway milestones > or private ground limits, they're not covered by this proposal > A suggestion would to define marker=milestone or marker=land_limit + > support=pedestal + material=stone. > > All the best > > François > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 21:22, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> Hi Jospeh >> >> This proposal is an attempt to bring consistency in markers mapping, in >> two ways : >> - Provide a common concept to tag them all. >> - Free pipeline=* from some features unrelated directly to pipeline >> operation. >> >> Second point should encourage a mapping good practice I didn't have in >> mind in previous pipeline mapping evolutions : the marker shouldn't be >> part >> of the pipeline way directly as it warns about the presence of pipelines >> in >> a given range or distances. >> Just like road signs should get their own node beside the road instead of >> be part the highway way. >> To me yes, we should encourage to use marker=pipeline instead of >> pipeline=marker prior to the last gets *really* used. >> 29k features is less than the whole amount of pipeline markers we have to >> find in France (which is a small area). >> >> All the best >> >> François >> >> Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 06:07, Joseph Eisenberg < >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> It looks like the main effect of this proposal would be to replace >>> pipeline=marker (used 29k times) with marker=pipeline, though the new >>> key >>> marker= could also be used for power cables and telecommunications >>> cables. >>> >>> Is it really necessary to change pipeline=marker? >>> >>> -Joseph >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:10 PM François Lacombe < >>> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Here is another proposal we were two working on it. >>>> It regards several kinds of utility markers usually warning about >>>> buried >>>> infrastructure beneath them. >>>> >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal >>>> >>>> Markers are currently described with keys like pipeline=* and power=* >>>> although they're not directly involved in infrastructure running >>>> processes >>>> (like a valve can be on a pipeline for instance). >>>> Then it can be useful to define a new key marker=* to gather more >>>> categories on OSM (pipeline is for now the most mapped here) and >>>> prevent >>>> pipeline, power and telecom keys be cluttered with not directly related >>>> features. >>>> >>>> Note that markers mapping is important on OSM as location signs and >>>> relevant data to verify presence of not visible infrastructures. >>>> >>>> Feel free to raise concerns here and on talk page. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> François >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
