Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 02:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> US law does not apply everywhere.

Yes, it doesn't. Besides the USA don't recognise database right;
apparently it's mainly used in the EU.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 14:23, François Lacombe
 wrote:
>
> structure={lattice,guyed, tube...} would be better than tower:construction. 
> 15k uses vs 150k.
> Lattice is the structure and have nothing to do with actual construction. 
> This tag should be avoided.

Seems sensible.

> telecom=antenna would be a device, wile we are discussion of supports.
> It's the same for power=transformers (a device) supported by a power=pole (a 
> support). Using power=* for both support and device cause small issues 
> because power=* is used for the support.

If there are antennas attached to something else, e.g. mobile phone
and microwave relay antennas attached to an electricity pylon, [1] you
could simply add

communication:mobile_phone=yes
communication:microwave=yes

to

power=tower.

[1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eJ8dwz4EJ8hRSJPO1gRKEg

> telecom=antenna may be used to tag individual antennas on large towers too.

There's also man_made=antenna (with 6, 420 uses vs 167 uses of telecom=antenna):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi Lionel

Thanks for this helpful clarification! I'd suggest to use them on OSM.

Regards
Markus

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile 
> structure construction :
> - Self-supported pylons (the "tower", mostly looking like the power=tower in 
> OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in concrete) ;
> - Guy-wired pylons (the "mast" as described in the engineering definition 
> where it is a structure held by guys);
> - Self-supported roof structure (half of them are just simple antennas, the 
> other half are mast (the larger structure that clearly hold more than 1 
> antenna on top of buildings));
> - Guy-wired roof structure (all of them are mast);
> - And some other things like on electricity pylons(all of them are just 
> antennas on top of something as far as i know).
>
> And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice 
> pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just "tubes" (for 
> antennas isolated). So it would correspond to the 
> tower:construction=guyed_lattice or guyed_tube (for mast) and lattice or 
> freestanding (for the tower). Note that the older concrete telecom tower is 
> noted as "tubular pylon".
>
> Thus, as i see it, the tower tag is the equivalent of pylon (as in the 
> power=* tag where the power=tower is the equivalent of what we call 
> "electricity pylon" here) and the mast are either the guy-wired structures OR 
> the "largest" structures on the roof of buildings (which are clearly not an 
> unique antenna). And then we need a tag for isolated antenna (i saw that a 
> "telecom=antenna" was proposed on the telecom wiki page and i used it some 
> times, but that's just a tag to indicate either on a node (on top of a 
> building) or on another structure (like power=tower) that a telecom antenna 
> is there. So to me, this covers everything i see in our database.
>
> If we use the current definition, the only problem i see is for the 
> "self-supported pylons" which should all be tagged as tower (on engineering 
> terminology), but could currently be tagged as mast if they don't look like 
> "big tower". But the problem is minor, as if you look at the tag 
> "tower:construction", the "guyed_lattice" and "guyed_tube" already say that 
> it is a 'mast' in the engineering definition (and as far as i know, all masts 
> are either guyed_lattice or guyed_tube construction !). ;-)
>
> => And thus, the only change i would make is to the sub-tag 
> tower:construction : using "lattice" or "tube" for the "freestanding" towers 
> (the freestanding value is more general but give not much information as if 
> it is not guyed, i think it is always freestanding). So at the end, the 
> engineering definition is clearly indicated via this tag.
>
> Best regards,
> Lionel
>
> Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer  a 
> écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>>
>> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
>> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
>> contentious and/or confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> what about this: 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg
>>
>> Actual tagging is even more weird, or does anyone recognize a mansard roof 
>> here?
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306362151
>>
>> this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English definition, 
>> but at least for Germans it is a tower.
>> I would not require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should 
>> provide some enclosed space).
>>
>>
>> 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

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2018, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 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? :-)


read wikipedia with a grain of salt, there are different engineering 
definitions for these terms, according to the field of endeavor and the country.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2018, at 02:27, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
>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


I would see the building property as orthogonal, a tower may also be a 
building, e.g. this one is a tower and a building in my reading:

http://img.fotocommunity.com/der-rossbergturm-4-618cda5f-e616-4b48-9fc1-432e3220ccc0.jpg?width=1000


also bell towers often are buildings, as are the monumental and accessible tv 
towers. Also this one is an example for a building (and also a water tower): 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/f/f1/2012-07-19_Roma_EUR_Fungo_(torre_serbatoio).jpg
(has a restaurant below the tank)

Although it is not very high, I would call this one a building and a tower too: 
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einsteinturm_7443.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
(it was built for scientific research)


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

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  a
écrit :

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 10:28, Greg Troxel  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
>  that depends on guy lines
>  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
>  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
>  structure, while a mast
>  is held up by stays or guys
> . 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 

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 10:28, Greg Troxel  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
 that depends on guy lines
 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  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
 structure, while a mast
 is held up by stays or guys
. 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 20:05 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >  wrote:
> >> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts
> and not protectable by copyright
> > If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a
> > compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if not by
> > copyright then by so-called database right. See:
> >
> >
> https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Law_at_ESA/Intellectual_Property_Rights/Copyright_and_databases
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right
>
> US law does not apply everywhere.
>

Obviously, since those articles are about a sui generis database right that
US law does not recognize.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> 
>> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
>> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
>> contentious and/or confusing.
>
> what about this: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg

That does not have as the almost entire purpose to support antennas.
There is substantial effort/expense to make it suitable for people in a
touristy way.  So I would definitely not call that
"antenna_support_structure".  And it's tall (that's the point) and not a
building, so calling in man_made=tower seems right.

> this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English
> definition, but at least for Germans it is a tower.  I would not
> require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should provide
> some enclosed space).

fair enough.  And I'm fine with this being tower in a world where
antenna supports are something else.

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.)

  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.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Greg Troxel]

SelfishSeahorse  writes:

>> For an example of something used in communications (an American thing,
>> but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things
>> with the same characteristics):
>>
>>   http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower
>>
>> which says right there can be up to 500 feet when guyed and 80 feet not
>> guyed.  But it's the same thing in both cases -- it just needs more
>> support when taller where the forces get bigger.
>
> I'd call this is a -- either guyed or not guyed -- mast (because there
> is no internal access).

I'm ok with that, as long as we realize that we are defining words to
not line up with US usage.  That's fairly normal, but we should be clear
that we are doing it.

>> As I said earlier, things that are maybe 10cm in diameter are usually
>> called masts.  These are very minor and not really used in
>> telecom/broadcasting.
>
> Do you call this [1] a mast in the USA?
>
> [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LeifersexTimZentrum.jpg

Yes.  I (a ham radio operator) would call that a mast, because it isn't
lattice (like Rohn 65).  But it's on the large/strong end of mast, vs a
2" / 5 cm tubing section.  The general public would call that "cell
tower", but then again they would refer to cell antennas bolted onto the
top floor of a building "cell tower" also - for them, it's a functional
term.  But most amateur radio people would call it tower or mast if just
asked "what's that", and almost all that said tower if you then said
"but really, is it a tower or a mast", would say "well, good point, it's
just a mast, but it's on the upper edge of mast ".

>> So maybe we just need
>>
>>   man_made=antenna_support_structure
>>
>> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
>> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
>> contentious and/or confusing.
>
> I'm not very convinced because that would mean that everything from
> this tiny mast on a roof [1] to the Tokyo Tower [2] would be tagged
> man_made=antenna_support_structure.
>
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Tower

I really mean things that have almost no other purpose.  That structure
is also a tourist attraction, and it seems to have been built for that.
So I would not call it antenna_support_structure.

Here's a photo of something near me for TV, with no other purpose (other
than other communication stuff also put on it).

http://gallery.bostonradio.org/2003-05/needham-towers/100-01179-med.html

This is definitely antenna_support_structure.

But I don't really expect people to like this proposal.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Warin]

On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not 
protectable by copyright

If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a
compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if not by
copyright then by so-called database right. See:

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Law_at_ESA/Intellectual_Property_Rights/Copyright_and_databases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right


US law does not apply everywhere.


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:58, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality.  guys are
> needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that
> are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter.

I agree.

> > A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> > access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
> > from "buildings " in that they are
> > not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")

Imho, the current definition of man_made=tower -- 'A tower is a
building, which is higher than it is wide' -- is nonsensical. A tower
can be a building (if it has walls and a roof) but it doesn't have to
be a building -- for instance, i wouldn't call an open lookout tower
[1] or the Eiffel Tower [2] buildings.

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Gurtenturm.JPG
[2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_Eiffel_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg

> For an example of something used in communications (an American thing,
> but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things
> with the same characteristics):
>
>   http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower
>
> which says right there can be up to 500 feet when guyed and 80 feet not
> guyed.  But it's the same thing in both cases -- it just needs more
> support when taller where the forces get bigger.

I'd call this is a -- either guyed or not guyed -- mast (because there
is no internal access).

> As I said earlier, things that are maybe 10cm in diameter are usually
> called masts.  These are very minor and not really used in
> telecom/broadcasting.

Do you call this [1] a mast in the USA?

[1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LeifersexTimZentrum.jpg

> So maybe we just need
>
>   man_made=antenna_support_structure
>
> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
> contentious and/or confusing.

I'm not very convinced because that would mean that everything from
this tiny mast on a roof [1] to the Tokyo Tower [2] would be tagged
man_made=antenna_support_structure.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Tower

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not 
> protectable by copyright

If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a
compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if not by
copyright then by so-called database right. See:

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Law_at_ESA/Intellectual_Property_Rights/Copyright_and_databases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:57:38 -0400
From: Greg Troxel 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM Tag 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)


Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:


A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
access only

This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality.  guys are
needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that
are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter.


A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
from "buildings <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building>" in that they are
not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")

again towers can need guys if they are really tall (300m), even if they
are the same construction that would not need guys if only somewhat tall
(30m).   Guy wires do not make a tower not a tower, in the language of
antenna support structure.

Perhaps this is a UK vs US English thing, or a lay vs radio engineering
thing.  But your definitions (to a US engineering type) seem seriously
wrong.

Now, if you're coming at this from "tower is building that's mostly used
to get something high, and not for inhabitation" and "mast is an
antenna support structure that is not a building.  Note that things that
engineers call towers, such as structures made out of lattice like Rohn
65, are called masts in OSM because they are not buildings"  then I can
see that.  But in that case, there is no requirement for a mast to be
guyed.  I can certainly see a "guyed means not tower" in that world,
because buildings don't have guy wires.

For an example of something used in communications (an American thing,
but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things
with the same characteristics):

   http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower

which says right there can be up to 500 feet when guyed and 80 feet not
guyed.  But it's the same thing in both cases -- it just needs more
support when taller where the forces get bigger.

Around me, antenna support structures for cellular (mobile phones) are
typically 30' and I have never seen one guyed.  Some are tube-like
(because planning boards require that) and some are lattice.  But they
are not buildings -- they are antenna support structures that *maybe*
one person could climb inside of, but maybe not.  There are also antenna
support structures for TV, which are typically lattice and 300m tall,
and always guyed.  Everyone calls these towers.   To call the 30m ones
towers because they are not guyed and the 300m ones masts because they
are guyed makes zero sense in US English usage, either for the general
public or for engineers.

As I said earlier, things that are maybe 10cm in diameter are usually
called masts.  These are very minor and not really used in
telecom/broadcasting.

So maybe we just need

   man_made=antenna_support_structure

for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
contentious and/or confusing.


Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?

I don't know why you are proposing classes of height. It seems like
speed limits and road width that we should have a height tag and people
should make their best estimate, and renderers can do what they think
sensible.  Adding some sort of bins for heights in the tagging scheme
seems like unnecessary complexity that brings no value.




+1 to all your points.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Hi Lionel,

Thank you for this clarification
I agree on classification, let's talk about tagging

Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 11:30, Lionel Giard  a
écrit :

>
> And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice
> pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just "tubes"
> (for antennas isolated). So it would correspond to the t
> *ower:construction=guyed_lattice* or *guyed_tube* (for mast) and* lattice*
> or *freestanding *(for the tower). Note that the older concrete telecom
> tower is noted as "tubular pylon".
>
> => And thus, the only change i would make is to the sub-tag
> *tower:construction* : using "*lattice*" or "*tube*" for the
> "freestanding" towers (the freestanding value is more general but give not
> much information as if it is not guyed, i think it is always freestanding).
> So at the end, the engineering definition is clearly indicated via this
> tag.
>

structure={lattice,guyed, tube...} would be better than tower:construction.
15k uses vs 150k.
Lattice is the structure and have nothing to do with actual construction.
This tag should be avoided.


> Thus, as i see it, the *tower *tag is the equivalent of pylon (as in the
> power=* tag where the power=tower is the equivalent of what we call
> "electricity pylon" here) and the *mast *are either the guy-wired
> structures OR the "largest" structures on the roof of buildings (which are
> clearly not an unique antenna). And then we need a tag for isolated *antenna
> *(i saw that a "telecom=antenna" was proposed on the telecom wiki page
> and i used it some times, but that's just a tag to indicate either on a
> node (on top of a building) or on another structure (like power=tower) that
> a telecom antenna is there. So to me, this covers everything i see in our
> database.
>

telecom=antenna would be a device, wile we are discussion of supports.
It's the same for power=transformers (a device) supported by a power=pole
(a support). Using power=* for both support and device cause small issues
because power=* is used for the support.

telecom=antenna may be used to tag individual antennas on large towers too.

All th best

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile
structure construction :
- *Self-supported pylons* (the "*tower*", mostly looking like the
power=tower in OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in
concrete) ;
- *Guy-wired pylons* (the "*mast*" as described in the engineering
definition where it is a structure held by guys);
- *Self-supported roof structure* (half of them are just simple *antennas*,
the other half are *mast *(the larger structure that clearly hold more than
1 antenna on top of buildings));
- *Guy-wired roof structure* (all of them are *mast*);
- And some other things like on electricity pylons(all of them are just
antennas on top of something as far as i know).

And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice
pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just "tubes"
(for antennas isolated). So it would correspond to the t
*ower:construction=guyed_lattice* or *guyed_tube* (for mast) and* lattice*
or *freestanding *(for the tower). Note that the older concrete telecom
tower is noted as "tubular pylon".

Thus, as i see it, the *tower *tag is the equivalent of pylon (as in the
power=* tag where the power=tower is the equivalent of what we call
"electricity pylon" here) and the *mast *are either the guy-wired
structures OR the "largest" structures on the roof of buildings (which are
clearly not an unique antenna). And then we need a tag for isolated *antenna
*(i saw that a "telecom=antenna" was proposed on the telecom wiki page and
i used it some times, but that's just a tag to indicate either on a node
(on top of a building) or on another structure (like power=tower) that a
telecom antenna is there. So to me, this covers everything i see in our
database.

If we use the current definition, the only problem i see is for the
"self-supported pylons" which should all be tagged as tower (on engineering
terminology), but could currently be tagged as mast if they don't look like
"big tower". But the problem is minor, as if you look at the tag
"tower:construction", the "guyed_lattice" and "guyed_tube" already say that
it is a 'mast' in the engineering definition (and as far as i know, all
masts are either guyed_lattice or guyed_tube construction !). ;-)

=> And thus, the only change i would make is to the sub-tag
*tower:construction* : using "*lattice*" or "*tube*" for the "freestanding"
towers (the freestanding value is more general but give not much
information as if it is not guyed, i think it is always freestanding). So
at the end, the engineering definition is clearly indicated via this tag.

Best regards,
Lionel

Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
> contentious and/or confusing.
>
>
>
> what about this:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg
>
> Actual tagging is even more weird, or does anyone recognize a mansard roof
> here?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306362151
>
> this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English
> definition, but at least for Germans it is a tower.
> I would not require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should
> provide some enclosed space).
>
>
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Untrue. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data 

A significant part of Wikidata data was harvested from Wikipedia, in which for 
example most 
coordinates are produced using/copied from products with licenses conflicting 
with OSM.
For example copying from Google Maps to OpenStreetMap (even indirectly) is not 
OK, and copying 
Wikidata coordinates (that were copied to Wikipedia from Google Maps) is also 
not OK. Note that 
Wikipedia allows and encourages to use Google Maps to obtain coordinate data 
and other sources 
that are not OK to be used in OSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_Maps
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#From_printed_maps
 


26. Oct 2018 00:50 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com 
:


> Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all numerical 
> values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, are also in 
> Wikidata.
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> dieterdre...@gmail.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>>> Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio 
>>> AND tv?), 
>>
>> Which would both count as communication
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
> contentious and/or confusing.


what about this: 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg

Actual tagging is even more weird, or does anyone recognize a mansard roof here?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306362151

this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English definition, 
but at least for Germans it is a tower.
I would not require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should 
provide some enclosed space).


Cheers, Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 08:20, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
> I would distinguish broadcasting from two way communication, but won’t
> insist
>

This have to be done with telecom=*, not man_made or building

Also, tower:type is not a good idea as :type doesn't provide additional
information and merge functional and structure values.
It may be great to avoid mast:type or pole:type also

Prefer telecom=* for all tower/poles/mast functions

My 2 cts

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:03, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> Something doesn't become "licence washed" by being copied from a differently 
> licensed source to a CC0-claimed one.  The actual text of the claim at the 
> bottom of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page is also somewhat 
> different to just "CC0".



CC0 licensors are not giving any kind of guarantee that the content is actually 
free of copyright or other rights.

On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not 
protectable by copyright 

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 26. Oct 2018, at 00:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio 
>> AND tv?), 
> 
> 
> Which would both count as communication


I would distinguish broadcasting from two way communication, but won’t insist 


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Greg Troxel]

Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:

> A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
> access only

This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality.  guys are
needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that
are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter.

> A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
> from "buildings " in that they are
> not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")

again towers can need guys if they are really tall (300m), even if they
are the same construction that would not need guys if only somewhat tall
(30m).   Guy wires do not make a tower not a tower, in the language of
antenna support structure.

Perhaps this is a UK vs US English thing, or a lay vs radio engineering
thing.  But your definitions (to a US engineering type) seem seriously
wrong.

Now, if you're coming at this from "tower is building that's mostly used
to get something high, and not for inhabitation" and "mast is an
antenna support structure that is not a building.  Note that things that
engineers call towers, such as structures made out of lattice like Rohn
65, are called masts in OSM because they are not buildings"  then I can
see that.  But in that case, there is no requirement for a mast to be
guyed.  I can certainly see a "guyed means not tower" in that world,
because buildings don't have guy wires.

For an example of something used in communications (an American thing,
but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things
with the same characteristics):

  http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower

which says right there can be up to 500 feet when guyed and 80 feet not
guyed.  But it's the same thing in both cases -- it just needs more
support when taller where the forces get bigger.

Around me, antenna support structures for cellular (mobile phones) are
typically 30' and I have never seen one guyed.  Some are tube-like
(because planning boards require that) and some are lattice.  But they
are not buildings -- they are antenna support structures that *maybe*
one person could climb inside of, but maybe not.  There are also antenna
support structures for TV, which are typically lattice and 300m tall,
and always guyed.  Everyone calls these towers.   To call the 30m ones
towers because they are not guyed and the 300m ones masts because they
are guyed makes zero sense in US English usage, either for the general
public or for engineers.

As I said earlier, things that are maybe 10cm in diameter are usually
called masts.  These are very minor and not really used in
telecom/broadcasting.

So maybe we just need

  man_made=antenna_support_structure

for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
contentious and/or confusing.

> Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
> this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
> into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?

I don't know why you are proposing classes of height. It seems like
speed limits and road width that we should have a height tag and people
should make their best estimate, and renderers can do what they think
sensible.  Adding some sort of bins for heights in the tagging scheme
seems like unnecessary complexity that brings no value.


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/10/2018 23:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all 
numerical values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, 
are also in Wikidata.


Something doesn't become "licence washed" by being copied from a 
differently licensed source to a CC0-claimed one.  The actual text of 
the claim at the bottom of 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page is also somewhat 
different to just "CC0".


Best Regards,

Andy

(taking as read the copious amounts of prior discussion on this - the 
different jursidictions that OSM and wikidata/wikipedia are based in and 
the likeliness (or lack of it) of any claim by wikidata/wikipedia 
against OSM)




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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all numerical
values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, are also in
Wikidata.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio
>> AND tv?),
>>
>
> Which would both count as communication
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 20:39, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Where, in your (or anybody else's) scheme of things does the BT Tower fit?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Tower
>
> Its primary purpose was for microwave communications and replaced an
> earlier steel lattice
> mast (wikipedia calls it a tower but from the description it was a mast)
> on the site.  It contained
> office space, galleries, a souvenir shop and a rotating restaurant.  Due
> to security concerns, public
> access to the tower ceased in 1981.
>

So it would have been a man_made=communications_tower (which I want to
rename multipurpose) but after 1981 should have been changed to
man_made=tower
tower=communications

Given that public access to the BT tower has ceased, is it now a mast?  I
> think not. :)
>

Definitely not!


> But I do think it
> needs some sort of tagging to distinguish it from the likes of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preseli_transmitting_station
> (even though it is sometimes referred to locally as "The Big Tower").
>

Yep, that would be a
man_made=mast
tower:type=communication


>
> And then there are oversized lamp-posts for mobile phones.  And there's an
> ordinary telephone
> pole near me, with wired connections to surrounding houses, which also has
> two crowns of
> flat plate antennae for mobiles.  And I've seen a couple of
> strange-looking small antennae in my
> local town that might be GSM or might be part of the current UK emergency
> services network.  Oh,
> and there's a radio ham near me with a Versatower (or similar) laden with
> antennae.
>

Yep, when does a pole become a tower? Doesn't seem to be any definition
that I can find that says that one becomes the other at x metres tall, or
when there are more than y things attached to it? But I've always called
these
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0642511,153.4367305,3a,75y,169.28h,116.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqWVrnPMgsfc-fBLPmwFp-A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqWVrnPMgsfc-fBLPmwFp-A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D206.28014%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
mobile phone towers, with telephone or power poles in front of it.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio
> AND tv?),
>

Which would both count as communication

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:13, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> Just note that Wikipedia (and other websites) isn't a legal source for
> OSM because of its incompatible license:
>

Sorry, wasn't aware of that as I've seen lot's of references to thins being
listed on Wiki?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 18:57, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as
> look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for
> these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but
> I may be misguided.
>

& I agree that observation tower doesn't seem quite right as most of the
things we are discussing were built for communications purposes, with
touristy bits included

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:08, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> According to this definition, short (< 10 m) antennae 'poles' on
> buildings [1] were 'towers'
>

They should probably be "poles", but as I mentioned earlier, there is no
OSM definition of poles, apart from power=poles:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dpole, support=pole
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:support, or the apparently
undiscussed (but used 4600 times!) utility=pole
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dutility_pole

As i've written in my previous message, guy-wires are used to
> stabilise tall masts. Therefore the absence of guy-wires doesn't imply
> that it's a tower.
>

But the engineering definition of mast is a "structure supported by guy
wires" so by that no guys = not a mast

> A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
> from "buildings" in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve
> other functions.")
>

The current tower definition says "A tower is a building, which is higher
than it is wide" - that may be better than tall, slim?


> Cooling towers or defensive towers aren't slim, but are still towers.
>

& we have separate tags for both of them

Imho, multi purpose is too broad.


I agree, but what's a word to describe something that's used for multiple
purposes?

Note that, for example, there are
> also bell towers with antennae inside.


Which I think would still be called a bell_tower, possibly also tagged as
communication:mobile_phone=yes

I think it would be best to
> either tag all purposes (e.g. tower:type=communication;observation) --
> which, however, might be problematic for data users -- or to tag the
> main purpose only.
>

But which of the two is the main purpose? Yes, they were built as comm's
towers but with a tourist sideline
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as
>> look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for
>> these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but
>> I may be misguided.
>>
>
> Where, in your (or anybody else's) scheme of things does the BT Tower fit?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Tower
>


for one, it is certainly a man_made=tower. It might also be a office and a
building=office_tower (?maybe)
Not sure about the tower type, but if you map other properties like the
antennas, the offices, etc. I am not even sure you'll need a subtype, also
because if we map things like water towers, cooling towers and towers to
dry fire hoses[1] (to name a few examples) with specific main tags, we will
much less feel the need for type-subtagging in general, and can concentrate
on the features they provide.

Cheers,
Martin

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlauchturm
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as
> look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for
> these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but
> I may be misguided.
>

Where, in your (or anybody else's) scheme of things does the BT Tower fit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Tower

Its primary purpose was for microwave communications and replaced an
earlier steel lattice
mast (wikipedia calls it a tower but from the description it was a mast) on
the site.  It contained
office space, galleries, a souvenir shop and a rotating restaurant.  Due to
security concerns, public
access to the tower ceased in 1981.

Until somebody brought up similar towers in France and Germany several days
ago I struggled to
see what purpose the current mast/tower distinctions served.  After that
point I thought of the BT
tower and understood the distinction.

Given that public access to the BT tower has ceased, is it now a mast?  I
think not. :)  But I do think it
needs some sort of tagging to distinguish it from the likes of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preseli_transmitting_station
(even though it is sometimes referred to locally as "The Big Tower").

And then there are oversized lamp-posts for mobile phones.  And there's an
ordinary telephone
pole near me, with wired connections to surrounding houses, which also has
two crowns of
flat plate antennae for mobiles.  And I've seen a couple of strange-looking
small antennae in my
local town that might be GSM or might be part of the current UK emergency
services network.  Oh,
and there's a radio ham near me with a Versatower (or similar) laden with
antennae.

Maybe we need to collectively create a collection of images of various
types of antenna systems
(excluding domestic TV aerials) so that we can figure out how to tag them
all.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 11:08 Uhr schrieb SelfishSeahorse <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

>
> As i've written in my previous message, guy-wires are used to
> stabilise tall masts. Therefore the absence of guy-wires doesn't imply
> that it's a tower.
>


+1



> I'd leave the current definition as is, just adding that usually tall
> masts are guyed but towers aren't.
>


I would not concentrate on the "guyed" part in the definitions, it depends
whose definition you use, and it isn't so relevant (IMHO).



>
> > A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
> from "buildings" in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve
> other functions.")
>


a tower may not have an "internal" space (in the sense of closed space).



>
> Cooling towers or defensive towers aren't slim, but are still towers.
>


They can be slim. Especially "cooling towers" are a different beast than
most of the other towers, and I would not tag them as a subtype of tower,
but rather with their own tag man_made=cooling_tower (which btw. is also
done for a long time, although it is not the only option, currently).




> And garages or office buildings aren't built to be habitable, but are
> still buildings. (I think it's fine to call a tower a building if it's
> closed, that is, has walls and a roof.)
>


there is no definition that requires being habitable for a building.



>
> > Replacing man_made=communications_tower with man-made=tower;
> tower=multi_purpose. Yes they're used for communication in that they have
> antennae mounted on them, but are also usually tourist spots with lookouts
> & so on, where normal TV towers etc aren't.
> Imho, multi purpose is too broad.



+1, it basically says nothing more than more than one usage. Looking
closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio AND tv?),
it would rather reduce usefulness of our data than improve it.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 07:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> A lot of the big ones will be listed somewhere on the internet - the really 
> big ones have their heights listed on that wiki page I mentioned earlier

Just note that Wikipedia (and other websites) isn't a legal source for
OSM because of its incompatible license:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> Do we also need a RFC / vote to amend the wiki page, or can I just amend it & 
> clear up the bad reference photo's?
>
> I'd be looking at combining the mentioned engineering definition with the 
> popular opinion expressed here to become:
>
> A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external 
> access only

According to this definition, short (< 10 m) antennae 'poles' on
buildings [1] were 'towers' and thus would be tagged the same as
towers more than 100 m high [2].

[1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LeifersexTimZentrum.jpg
[2]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zuerich_Uetliberg_Sendeturm.jpg

As i've written in my previous message, guy-wires are used to
stabilise tall masts. Therefore the absence of guy-wires doesn't imply
that it's a tower.

I'd leave the current definition as is, just adding that usually tall
masts are guyed but towers aren't.

> A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal 
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished 
> from "buildings" in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve 
> other functions.")

Cooling towers or defensive towers aren't slim, but are still towers.
And garages or office buildings aren't built to be habitable, but are
still buildings. (I think it's fine to call a tower a building if it's
closed, that is, has walls and a roof.)

> Replacing man_made=communications_tower with man-made=tower; 
> tower=multi_purpose. Yes they're used for communication in that they have 
> antennae mounted on them, but are also usually tourist spots with lookouts & 
> so on, where normal TV towers etc aren't.

Imho, multi purpose is too broad. Note that, for example, there are
also bell towers with antennae inside. I think it would be best to
either tag all purposes (e.g. tower:type=communication;observation) --
which, however, might be problematic for data users -- or to tag the
main purpose only.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 01:41 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> 1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation
> tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have
> elevators and public observation decks, right?
>


+1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as
look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for
these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but
I may be misguided.



>
> 2. In rendering style sheets it is possible to set the zoom level, the
> size of the icon and the presence of the name label based on height. For
> example:
> height>100 renders at z13,
> height>50 at z14,
> height>30 at z15,
> And if there is no height, at z17.
>


Are the rules taking different units into account, or do you have to map
these in meters? Are explicit units in meters working (like height="123 m")?





> It can be challenging to measure the height of a 100m tall tower, but an
> individual can use a meter stick, a gps and trigonometry to check the
> height in person.



Phones nowadays provide more or less precise apps for the estimation of
heights (e.g. with AR), but for almost any significant tower you will also
find precise documentation about their height.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 09:41, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> 1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation
> tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have
> elevators and public observation decks, right?
>

Multipurpose certainly isn't ideal, but was the best thing I could come up
with! :-) Most of them do indeed have observation decks, restaurants & so
on, but they're usually also festooned with antennae.


> Since there are already tags for tower:type=observation and
> tower:type=communications, perhaps there is no need for
> man_made=communications_tower?
>

Quite possibly, especially as it's horribly misused, but, as someone said
earlier in the discussion, they do render differently to other towers, show
up on the map fairly early, & make fantastic landmarks.

2. In rendering style sheets it is possible to set the zoom level, the size
> of the icon and the presence of the name label based on height. For example:
> height>100 renders at z13,
> height>50 at z14,
> height>30 at z15,
> And if there is no height, at z17.
>
> So entering a numeric height value in meters provides the most data for
> database users, and the most flexibility for map renderers.
>

That's great, thanks.


> It can be challenging to measure the height of a 100m tall tower, but an
> individual can use a meter stick, a gps and trigonometry to check the
> height in person. Often the height is on a sign for big towers. Armchair
> mappers may be out of luck, unless the sun casts long shadows on the aerial
> imagery, but there are many things that cannot be mapped from one’s
> armchair.
>

Indeed it can be. A lot of the big ones will be listed somewhere on the
internet - the really big ones have their heights listed on that wiki page
I mentioned earlier, & I don't suppose it *really* matters if someone lists
a tower as being 100m when it's really only 80!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation
tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have
elevators and public observation decks, right?

Since there are already tags for tower:type=observation and
tower:type=communications, perhaps there is no need for
man_made=communications_tower?

2. In rendering style sheets it is possible to set the zoom level, the size
of the icon and the presence of the name label based on height. For example:
height>100 renders at z13,
height>50 at z14,
height>30 at z15,
And if there is no height, at z17.

So entering a numeric height value in meters provides the most data for
database users, and the most flexibility for map renderers.

It can be challenging to measure the height of a 100m tall tower, but an
individual can use a meter stick, a gps and trigonometry to check the
height in person. Often the height is on a sign for big towers. Armchair
mappers may be out of luck, unless the sun casts long shadows on the aerial
imagery, but there are many things that cannot be mapped from one’s
armchair.

-Joseph
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:05 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 08:19, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> FYI, currently the height and tower:type of man_made=tower is used to set
>> the zoom level where it appears on the Openstreetmap-carto style sheet
>> (“standard” style).
>>
>
> Thanks Joseph - I obviously misread it (or don't remember the exact
> wording!), but same thing applies - would splitting heights into 3 bands
> work?
>
> But man_made=communications_tower is assumed to be big and tall, so it
>> renders like a >100m tall tower with no type, or tower:type=communication
>> or observation, visible at zoom level 13.
>
>
> & I'd be happy for my suggested multipurpose tower to render the same way
> as they *are* massive structures that are visible for a long way - it's
> just that the tag is grossly misused as people obviously think that every
> phone tower is a =communications_tower, when it was never intended to be.
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 08:19, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> FYI, currently the height and tower:type of man_made=tower is used to set
> the zoom level where it appears on the Openstreetmap-carto style sheet
> (“standard” style).
>

Thanks Joseph - I obviously misread it (or don't remember the exact
wording!), but same thing applies - would splitting heights into 3 bands
work?

But man_made=communications_tower is assumed to be big and tall, so it
> renders like a >100m tall tower with no type, or tower:type=communication
> or observation, visible at zoom level 13.


& I'd be happy for my suggested multipurpose tower to render the same way
as they *are* massive structures that are visible for a long way - it's
just that the tag is grossly misused as people obviously think that every
phone tower is a =communications_tower, when it was never intended to be.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

FYI, currently the height and tower:type of man_made=tower is used to set
the zoom level where it appears on the Openstreetmap-carto style sheet
(“standard” style).

But man_made=communications_tower is assumed to be big and tall, so it
renders like a >100m tall tower with no type, or tower:type=communication
or observation, visible at zoom level 13.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:04 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 04:03, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Regarding the unclear man_made=communications_tower tag, nobody wrote
>> that she or he is opposed to deprecating it. Do we still need a
>> deprecation proposal? (Note that it wasn't introduced by a proposal.)
>>
>
> Just catching back up to OSM & this discussion after a week away.
>
> Do we also need a RFC / vote to amend the wiki page, or can I just amend
> it & clear up the bad reference photo's?
>
> I'd be looking at combining the mentioned engineering definition with the
> popular opinion expressed here to become:
>
> A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
> access only
>
> A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically
> distinguished from "buildings "
> in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")
>
> Replacing man_made=communications_tower with man-made=tower;
> tower=multi_purpose. Yes they're used for communication in that they have
> antennae mounted on them, but are also usually tourist spots with lookouts
> & so on, where normal TV towers etc aren't. I'd even suggest a automatic
> edit to reclassify them - TagInfo says there are currently ~3700
> communications_towers, whereas
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers suggest there should
> probably be <100. As mentioned previously, there's currently ~200 of them
> tagged in Australia. From checking them at random, it would appear there
> should be 1!
>
> Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
> this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
> into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 04:03, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> Regarding the unclear man_made=communications_tower tag, nobody wrote
> that she or he is opposed to deprecating it. Do we still need a
> deprecation proposal? (Note that it wasn't introduced by a proposal.)
>

Just catching back up to OSM & this discussion after a week away.

Do we also need a RFC / vote to amend the wiki page, or can I just amend it
& clear up the bad reference photo's?

I'd be looking at combining the mentioned engineering definition with the
popular opinion expressed here to become:

A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
access only

A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
from "buildings " in that they are
not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")

Replacing man_made=communications_tower with man-made=tower;
tower=multi_purpose. Yes they're used for communication in that they have
antennae mounted on them, but are also usually tourist spots with lookouts
& so on, where normal TV towers etc aren't. I'd even suggest a automatic
edit to reclassify them - TagInfo says there are currently ~3700
communications_towers, whereas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers suggest there should
probably be <100. As mentioned previously, there's currently ~200 of them
tagged in Australia. From checking them at random, it would appear there
should be 1!

Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 16:07, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> The guy wires or not is made into the main thing here, but it's really a 
> detail.

Obviously, from a certain height, tall cylindrical structures like
masts need guy-wires for stabilisation. Otherwise, they need a larger
diameter or a conical shape. Thus, the presence of guy-wires is an
indicator for masts but not a requirement.

Imho, the current definition on the wiki according to which a tower
has internal access or platforms is practical and quite sensible.

Regarding the unclear man_made=communications_tower tag, nobody wrote
that she or he is opposed to deprecating it. Do we still need a
deprecation proposal? (Note that it wasn't introduced by a proposal.)

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Greg Troxel]

Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 03:58, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
>
>> There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in
>> English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions
>> would make sense nevertheless.

Part of the issue is UK English vs US English, and usage common in
professional or amateur radio language vs public usage.

The same thing will be:

UK: Mobile phone mast
US: cell tower

> So, how about we clean up the various mixtures of definitions, &
> conflicting photos, to:
>
> man_made=mast: a vertical structure, supported by external guys and
> anchors. (Possibly also include: Has no internal access, can only be
> climbed by ladder?)

> man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure with internal
> access

The guy wires or not is made into the main thing here, but it's really a
detail.  In amateur radio, the same kind of tower (e.g. Rohn 45
sections, which are lattice) can sometimes be freestanding and sometimes
guyed.  Adding guy wires does not make them a mast.   There is a TV
antenna structure near me that might be 300m tall, is lattice, and it
has guys.  It is definitely "tower" by US usage.

In US amateur usage, mast often refers to something that is up to maybe
4" in diameter (and thus basically not climbable).  Often guyed, but not
always.  Basically, you add guy wires when you need to, which is a
function of material strength, height, wind loading of antennas on top,
and the wind levels you want the thing to survive.

In US cellular infrastructure, there are big lattice things that look
like someone obviously could climb them.  There are also things that are
several feet in diameter and round.  For all I know, these are the same
towers inside with a fairing to make them look better, and some may be
climbable internally.   But they are big, and function the same way, so
I would call them tower.

> man_made=communications_tower: to be deprecated (but also create a new
> tower:type=multipurpose for the massive 150m+ combined communication /
> observation / tourist attraction buildings)
>
> man-made=pole: (currently not defined) a usually vertical column used as a
> support for overhead utilities such as cables or antennae (Do we need a
> height reference eg a pole is <15m - if it's 15m+, it becomes a tower?)

So what's the difference between a pole and a mast?
A pole is used for power, and is usually wood, and a mast for antennas,
usually metal?

The world has a variety of shades of these things and there are going to
be edge cases.  The question is what we are trying to represent and why.
Arguably having a height tag is the most important thing for renderers.

So I would say of tall thin things to hold other things up high (which
leaves out arguing about vertical antennas):

  tower: anything lattice, anything > 1m diameter, anything > 50m high.
  ok to be guyed or not.  (so a 4m triangular lattice with 0.3m edges is
  still a tower, but that's ok with me)

  pole: anything not a tower, probably cannot be guyed, and either wood
  or > 0.25m diameter, such as is typically used for power lines (wood
  in distribution, and big wood or steel tubular in transmission (which
  also uses lattice).

  mast: anyhing not a tower or a pole.  ok to be guyed or not.
  Typically <= 0.1m diamater, but anything up to 0.25m is ok.

This definition proposal admits that these are all subtypes of the same
thing, and that things that people call towers are more substantial than
things called masts.

Really what I suggest is not so far from what you suggested, except that
I am de-emphasizing guying and calling anything that is big/substantial
by any of several metrics a tower.

I would probably also call broadcast antennas around 1 MHz "tower", even
though there the point is not to hold up something but the structure is
the antenna.  We could do the same for something used as an antenna that
is otherwise a mast.   Map users after all usually want to use these as
navigation references - at least that's why there are shown on
traditional nautical charts.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 14:28 Uhr schrieb Jonathon Rossi :

>
> My first thought was some sort of "landmark=yes" tag, there is already a
> "denotation=landmark" tag for trees, however it appears like there might
> have been a landmark tag in the past that was deprecated, and I realise
> that it would be a stupid tag because you'd have to tag everything.
>


just because you could tag a lot of stuff, it doesn't mean you have to.
landmark on a tower could be used to denote significance, on the other
hand, most towers will be landmarks.



>
> My next thought was to apply "tourism=viewpoint", however that assumes
> public access to enter the tower. The Eiffel Tower is tagged
> "tourism=attraction" and "tower:type=communication;observation". Could
> tourism=attraction be a good option, it indicates something for tourists
> (or locals) to go and check out a bit like tourism=viewpoint even if you
> can only see it from the ground and can't go inside?
>


-1, tourism=attraction is a prominence flag without real meaning (it is
often hard to verify and it is not applied similarly on a global level
(often not even on a local level). People use it also for stuff they want
to have rendered on the map, and for which there is no established tag.
Therefore, the tag and its rendering actually slow down the development of
tags with more semantic meaning. If you have a specific scope (like
dividing the prominent from the insignificant towers), you should define
the criterion and develop specific tagging to represent it.





>
> Regarding mast vs tower, I've generally tagged buildings as towers (i.e.
> you can enter them even if just a staircase) and non-buildings as a mast
> (including a free standing metal or concrete pole with comms equipment
> mounted atop). I don't really mind, but a clear definition is definitely
> needed because I was unsure until I looked around at a heap of examples and
> just went with the building/non-building distinction.
>


+1, I would not insist for "guyed" for masts, and maybe not even for "free
standing" for towers. I would focus on the presence of platforms, visitors
or at least people regularly going there and staying there (e.g. an airport
control tower). I still believe, most true tower types should be main tags
(man_made=control_tower, )

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Lionel Giard  wrote:

> The problem i see with that "multipurpose" value is that it give no
> information and could be misused for other tower:type (like
> defensive;observation) which should not be rendered as communication_tower.
> Thus i would propose to render the "communication_tower" based on the
> height > 250 m (arbitrary value for example) when in combination with
> tower:type=communication (even when others tower:type are mentioned like in
> your example : "tower:type=communication;observation"). I don't know if it
> is feasible for the renderer to identify the presence of only one value in
> the tag ? Otherwise i suppose it would need to put all alternative
> available... :s
>

Rather than trying to make up information (in the renderer) based on a
tower type or arbitrary height, wouldn't it be better to just indicate if
the tower is useful as a navigation aid and seen from a distance? Towers on
a mountain might not reach the arbitrary height but are still one of these
big towers because the surrounding area is much lower?

My first thought was some sort of "landmark=yes" tag, there is already a
"denotation=landmark" tag for trees, however it appears like there might
have been a landmark tag in the past that was deprecated, and I realise
that it would be a stupid tag because you'd have to tag everything.

My next thought was to apply "tourism=viewpoint", however that assumes
public access to enter the tower. The Eiffel Tower is tagged
"tourism=attraction" and "tower:type=communication;observation". Could
tourism=attraction be a good option, it indicates something for tourists
(or locals) to go and check out a bit like tourism=viewpoint even if you
can only see it from the ground and can't go inside?

Regarding mast vs tower, I've generally tagged buildings as towers (i.e.
you can enter them even if just a staircase) and non-buildings as a mast
(including a free standing metal or concrete pole with comms equipment
mounted atop). I don't really mind, but a clear definition is definitely
needed because I was unsure until I looked around at a heap of examples and
just went with the building/non-building distinction.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

The problem i see with that "multipurpose" value is that it give no
information and could be misused for other tower:type (like
defensive;observation) which should not be rendered as communication_tower.
Thus i would propose to render the "communication_tower" based on the
height > 250 m (arbitrary value for example) when in combination with
tower:type=communication (even when others tower:type are mentioned like in
your example : "tower:type=communication;observation"). I don't know if it
is feasible for the renderer to identify the presence of only one value in
the tag ? Otherwise i suppose it would need to put all alternative
available... :s

Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  a
écrit :

>
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:13, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> " If you combine communications;observation, which would it render as?"
>>
>> It won't render at all, unless an individual renderer adds support for
>> this specific combination
>>
>
> Thanks Joseph
>
> So, if we use the existing rendered =communications_tower icon for my
> suggested =multipurpose, that will still render so the massive, visible for
> a long distance towers will be easily visible on the map
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:13, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> " If you combine communications;observation, which would it render as?"
>
> It won't render at all, unless an individual renderer adds support for
> this specific combination
>

Thanks Joseph

So, if we use the existing rendered =communications_tower icon for my
suggested =multipurpose, that will still render so the massive, visible for
a long distance towers will be easily visible on the map

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

" If you combine communications;observation, which would it render as?"

It won't render at all, unless an individual renderer adds support for this
specific combination


On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 08:51, marc marc  wrote:
>
>> I agree in principle, but I have a few questions.
>>
>> Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
>> > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure
>> > with internal access
>>
>> if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be
>> described by the undocumented building=tower ?
>>
>
> As Francois says, a lattice tower is not a building. & "undocumented" is
> also a bit of a problem! I didn't even know such a tag existed & it's not
> listed on the map features page
>
> > create a new tower:type=multipurpose
>>
>> tower:type=value1;value2 is not enough ?
>>
>
> Could be, but currently man_made:communications_tower renders one way,
> tower:type=communications & second way & tower:type=observation a different
> way again. If you combine communications;observation, which would it render
> as?
>
> so all support=pole and man-made=pole need
>> to be double tagged with the other namespace
>> or you see a difference between both ?
>>
>
> Another one that I didn't know of the existence of. The only reference I
> could find to pole was power=pole purely for supporting electrical cables.
> Somebody else, earlier in this discussion, also made reference to
> man_made=pole being undocumented but used for roof-top mobile phone antennae
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 08:51, marc marc  wrote:

> I agree in principle, but I have a few questions.
>
> Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure
> > with internal access
>
> if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be
> described by the undocumented building=tower ?
>

As Francois says, a lattice tower is not a building. & "undocumented" is
also a bit of a problem! I didn't even know such a tag existed & it's not
listed on the map features page

> create a new tower:type=multipurpose
>
> tower:type=value1;value2 is not enough ?
>

Could be, but currently man_made:communications_tower renders one way,
tower:type=communications & second way & tower:type=observation a different
way again. If you combine communications;observation, which would it render
as?

so all support=pole and man-made=pole need
> to be double tagged with the other namespace
> or you see a difference between both ?
>

Another one that I didn't know of the existence of. The only reference I
could find to pole was power=pole purely for supporting electrical cables.
Somebody else, earlier in this discussion, also made reference to
man_made=pole being undocumented but used for roof-top mobile phone antennae

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 00:51, marc marc  a écrit :

> Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure
> > with internal access
>
> if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be
> described by the undocumented building=tower ?
>

Hard to tag a free-standing lattice tower as a building, don't you?
http://lupo-bg.eu/en/projects/92/921.jpg


> > create a new tower:type=multipurpose
> tower:type=value1;value2 is not enough ?
>

tower:type shouldn't be confused with usage=* or any specific key to
indicate the purpose of the tower.
It's bad to merge several inconsistent concept in one key.


>
> > man-made=pole
>
> so all support=pole and man-made=pole need
> to be double tagged with the other namespace
> or you see a difference between both ?
>

support=pole should be understood in a passive meaning : the tagged feature
is supported on a pole
man_made=pole is an actual pole

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[marc marc]

I agree in principle, but I have a few questions.

Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure  
> with internal access

if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be
described by the undocumented building=tower ?

> create a new tower:type=multipurpose

tower:type=value1;value2 is not enough ?

> man-made=pole

so all support=pole and man-made=pole need
to be double tagged with the other namespace
or you see a difference between both ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 03:58, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in
> English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions
> would make sense nevertheless.
>

So, how about we clean up the various mixtures of definitions, &
conflicting photos, to:

man_made=mast: a vertical structure, supported by external guys and
anchors. (Possibly also include: Has no internal access, can only be
climbed by ladder?)

man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure with internal
access

man_made=communications_tower: to be deprecated (but also create a new
tower:type=multipurpose for the massive 150m+ combined communication /
observation / tourist attraction buildings)

man-made=pole: (currently not defined) a usually vertical column used as a
support for overhead utilities such as cables or antennae (Do we need a
height reference eg a pole is <15m - if it's 15m+, it becomes a tower?)

We should probably also look at the existing tag man_made=antenna
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna) which doesn't
really have any useful definition: Used to mark some kind of antennas

How does that sound to everyone?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:39, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
>
> That is, we have two contradictory definitions on the wiki: the
> engineering definition according to which a tower is freestanding and
> mast guyed, and the other definition according to which 'a tower is
> accessible and provides platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder
> steps to climb it'. (Where does this latter definition come from?)

I've just came across this article on the German Wikipedia [1] that
defines towers and masts similar to our non-engineering definition
mentioned above (translated with www.deepl.com/translator):

> A tower is a vertically aligned structure which can be walked on and which is 
> defined by its height. This means that its height is either a multiple of its 
> diameter or its thickness and/or it clearly towers above the surrounding 
> buildings or adjacent components.
>
> The term tower is to be distinguished on the one hand from the term 
> skyscraper, on the other hand from the term mast, whereby the exact 
> delimitation is often not possible, partly there are intersections, depending 
> upon context different definitions or linguistic blurriness. For example, 
> bell or church towers are usually referred to as towers even if they are not 
> accessible.
>
> In radio technology in particular - in contrast to a mast (transmitter mast), 
> which is often designed as a truss construction - a tower (transmitter tower) 
> is understood to be a accessible, not spanned (i.e. not anchored with guys) 
> upright cantilever construction.

[1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turm

There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in
English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions
would make sense nevertheless.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 7. Okt. 2018 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb François Lacombe <
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>:

>
> Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> a écrit :
>
>> It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a
>> watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc.
>> but they are all watch towers.
>
>
> With this logic, all objects in OSM would be mapped with a unique tag.
> object=black_road_with_cycle_lanes_in_each_direction.
>
> A watch tower is as complex as a road with several features, not a simple
> object.
> I don't get why a power tower can't be used as communication and watch
> tower also.
>
> Experience shows us that providing tagging assemblies is more
> comprehensive, versatile and sustainable.
> man_made=tower + usage=watch + material=wood sounds better than
> man_made=wooden_watch_tower
>



yes, there is always and for everything the question how describe it. And
any decision can be questioned because there are infinite alternative ways
of classification. What is the desirable depth and specificy of the
tags/classes? From my point of view, "tower" is too generic to make sense.
In general: if you can leave the "main tag" out and have the same amount of
information, it is not needed.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer  a
écrit :

> It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a
> watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc.
> but they are all watch towers.


With this logic, all objects in OSM would be mapped with a unique tag.
object=black_road_with_cycle_lanes_in_each_direction.

A watch tower is as complex as a road with several features, not a simple
object.
I don't get why a power tower can't be used as communication and watch
tower also.

Experience shows us that providing tagging assemblies is more
comprehensive, versatile and sustainable.
man_made=tower + usage=watch + material=wood sounds better than
man_made=wooden_watch_tower


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 15:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>

Some more searching & this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers says that there are 58
towers over 250m, ~80 (but not all comms_towers) 200-250m & ~100 100-200m,
but quite a few of this are simple TV towers, buildings etc

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2018, at 00:42, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day someone will add his function.


It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a watch 
tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc. but they 
are all watch towers. You won’t confuse them with water towers or tv towers or 
medieval residential towers, castle towers or bell towers, nor with observation 
towers, and not at all with lighting towers (which are masts) or with cooling 
towers of power stations, and also not with those supports for mobile network 
antennas. These are all completely different things. No expert needed.


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[marc marc]

Le 06. 10. 18 à 00:26, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> Why not tag man_made=observation_tower / bell_tower / etc.

do you have to be an expert in towers+telecomunication+a+b+c
to put the right tag?
or is it so disturbing to do it by successive refinement ?
I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day someone will add his function.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Oct 2018, at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower + 
> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than typing 
> in a single tag.


for me it made more sense to discourage the whole tower:type concept and try to 
migrate to something more specific in the main tag. 

There are just too many too different types of towers to keep some of them in 
the same category while others like water towers are still in different 
categories anyway. Why not tag man_made=observation_tower / bell_tower / etc.
For tv / radio towers, broadcasting_tower seems less ambiguous.

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

[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Friday, October 5, 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>

There are already more than a dozen in the small country of Switzerland.


> I'd like to suggest that we deprecate that tag, settle on the engineering
> definition given to differentiate between masts & towers:
>
> "In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
> external guys and anchors.
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
> differentiate masts and towers."
>
> & start cleaning things up.
>
> Your thoughts?
>

If this is the only common differentiation between masts and towers, then i
don't disagree using it.

However i'm wondering how many radio masts/towers have been tagged
according to the distinction latter outside vs steps/lift inside.

Besides, for people like me that are really bad at estimating height, but
still want to differentiate small mobile phone 'towers' like [1] from big
TV towers like [2], i think it would make sense to use a tag like
tower:access=inside/outside.

[1]:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mobile_Phone_Mast_near_Gore_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1703520.jpg
[2]:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona5.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Warin]

On 05/10/18 17:31, Lionel Giard wrote:

I also support this simplification of definition and tags.

Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a 
landmark with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of 
them are not publicly known around here) ? Because some are really 
useful for navigation (visible from a long way) while other are only 
visible from up close.


I would use the height tag .. and estimate the height.While it will not 
be precise you should be able to convey the difference between two of 
significant height differences. Of course you can place a 
source:height=visual estimation so that others can see where the height 
cam from and fine tune it if they have better data. I have done this for 
various towers, in one case I used the shadows in imagery to obtain the 
estimation from relative lengths of shadows.




I was personally using the communication_tower tag only to indicate 
that it is a landmark when it is an especially huge tower (and that 
was the only difference between a tower and this, to me).


Le ven. 5 oct. 2018 à 08:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick > a écrit :





On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more
work than typing in a single tag.


Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a
mobile phone tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?

Does this require a proposal process? How does something
become officially deprecated?


Yep, that's the other question!

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



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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

I also support this simplification of definition and tags.

Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a landmark
with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of them are not
publicly known around here) ? Because some are really useful for navigation
(visible from a long way) while other are only visible from up close.

I was personally using the communication_tower tag only to indicate that it
is a landmark when it is an especially huge tower (and that was the only
difference between a tower and this, to me).

Le ven. 5 oct. 2018 à 08:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick  a
écrit :

>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
>> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
>> typing in a single tag.
>>
>
> Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile
> phone tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?
>
>
>> Does this require a proposal process? How does something become
>> officially deprecated?
>>
>
> Yep, that's the other question!
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
> typing in a single tag.
>

Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile phone
tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?


> Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially
> deprecated?
>

Yep, that's the other question!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
typing in a single tag.
Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially
deprecated?

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
>> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
>> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
>> people want to distinguish).
>>
>
> I've been doing some checking & I think it could well be time to deprecate
> the whole man_made=communications_tower tag
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcommunications_tower
>
> There's supposedly ~3500 of them worldwide, with ~200 in Australia / NZ /
> SE Asia http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CwE
>
> Over the last few days, I've looked at 50 odd of these 200, & not one is a
> "communications_tower": "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications
> like television, radio, mobile phone or officials radio. It is often made
> from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." - & by a amazing twist,
> the one tower that I know of in Australia that does meet the criteria,
> Black Mountain Tower in Canberra https://www.blackmountaintower.com.au/,
> *isn't* listed as one!
>
> All of them I've looked at, are clearly, from aerial imagery, only a
>
>- man_made =tower
>
>- tower:type =
>communication
>
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>
> I'd like to suggest that we deprecate that tag, settle on the engineering
> definition given to differentiate between masts & towers:
>
> "In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
> external guys and anchors.
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
> differentiate masts and towers."
>
> & start cleaning things up.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
> people want to distinguish).
>

I've been doing some checking & I think it could well be time to deprecate
the whole man_made=communications_tower tag

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcommunications_tower

There's supposedly ~3500 of them worldwide, with ~200 in Australia / NZ /
SE Asia http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CwE

Over the last few days, I've looked at 50 odd of these 200, & not one is a
"communications_tower": "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications
like television, radio, mobile phone or officials radio. It is often made
from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." - & by a amazing twist,
the one tower that I know of in Australia that does meet the criteria,
Black Mountain Tower in Canberra https://www.blackmountaintower.com.au/,
*isn't* listed as one!

All of them I've looked at, are clearly, from aerial imagery, only a

   - man_made =tower
   
   - tower:type =
   communication
   


I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
dozen or 2?

I'd like to suggest that we deprecate that tag, settle on the engineering
definition given to differentiate between masts & towers:

"In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
external guys and anchors.
This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
differentiate masts and towers."

& start cleaning things up.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>  Then you get other "fuzzy" ones :-), such as this one that I found yesterday:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.2142429,152.8674011,3a,75y,325.73h,113.86t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPfNNEI5kmxC-HEqvkJfk2U3sHvxt_CijvrDU1R!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPfNNEI5kmxC-HEqvkJfk2U3sHvxt_CijvrDU1R%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya275.80704-ro0-fo100!7i7168!8i3584
>
> I was in this area last week & went in yesterday to check & if necessary 
> update some map features. I found that this tower is currently mapped as a 
> water_tower 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/740880328#map=19/-28.21438/152.86816. 
> Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports various 
> mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be?

I would map it based on the primary purpose, which is a water tower.
If it has mobile phone antennas attached you can map these with
"communication:mobile_phone=yes" (I do this where you have a building
with a mobile phone antenna on the roof).

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Oct 2018, at 23:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports various 
> mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be?


it’s a nice edge case to test the current system, I would probably keep the 
water tower tag. 
The tower:type=communication could IMHO still be added. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dcommunication
You could also add the radio facilities on top. There is man_made=antenna 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Communications_Transponder


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:23, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Given that it has a lattice structure, it is (according to the wiki
> definition) a water mast. :)
>

While by a different definition :-), it's a tower because it doesn't have
any guy wires!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> I was in this area last week & went in yesterday to check & if necessary
> update some map features. I found that this tower is currently mapped as a
> water_tower
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/740880328#map=19/-28.21438/152.86816.
> Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports
> various mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be?
>

Given that it has a lattice structure, it is (according to the wiki
definition) a water mast. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that
> state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction.
> man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example).
> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
> people want to distinguish)
>

 Then you get other "fuzzy" ones :-), such as this one that I found
yesterday:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.2142429,152.8674011,3a,75y,325.73h,113.86t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPfNNEI5kmxC-HEqvkJfk2U3sHvxt_CijvrDU1R!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPfNNEI5kmxC-HEqvkJfk2U3sHvxt_CijvrDU1R%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya275.80704-ro0-fo100!7i7168!8i3584

I was in this area last week & went in yesterday to check & if necessary
update some map features. I found that this tower is currently mapped as a
water_tower
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/740880328#map=19/-28.21438/152.86816.
Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports
various mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 17:19, José G Moya Y.  a écrit :

> Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs
> inside, and even windows.
>
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien
> ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq
>

It's definitely a tower.
In French it's called a "Tour" which literally stands for tower.

More globally, man_made should not have any "telecom" or
"telecommunication" values.
man_made=tower is enough and then telecom=* and eventually usage=* may be
used to complete.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[José G Moya Y .]

Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs
inside, and even windows.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien
ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq

WP says it is over 100m tall, too.

I don't have a telecomm background, but I think the "seems to be a
building, is hollow inside and has normal stairs instead of outer ladder"
is a good hint for casual mappers.


El lun., 1 oct. 2018 16:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escribió:

>
>
> Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same
>> width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more
>> supports.
>>
>
>
> I would not negate that a mast can be tapered.
>
>
>
>>
>> I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone
>> towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2)
>> and it seems like mast/tower is it.
>>
>
>
> If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that
> state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction.
> man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example).
> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
> people want to distinguish).
>
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:

> The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same
> width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more
> supports.
>


I would not negate that a mast can be tapered.



>
> I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone
> towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2)
> and it seems like mast/tower is it.
>


If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that
state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction.
man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example).
Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
people want to distinguish).

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Andrew Harvey]

The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same
width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more
supports.

I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone
towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2)
and it seems like mast/tower is it.

(1) 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=-33.93286508330576=151.1835542226=17=LDefrZ_M7MJDsLuLEdJgbw=0.7464902074345785=0.45923282717222375=1.4281437125748506

(2) 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=-33.8203138889=151.18473611108334=17=9HZD5c2vDjDBTmz-LwKuCA=0.6698933374381035=0.29396379693325986=0
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 08:29, Michael Booth  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I opened an issue on the rendering of man_made=communications_tower on the 
> standard layer over on OSM-carto: 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3414 and think 
> there should be a discussion about the tagging as well.
>
> The Wiki definition is: "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications 
> It is often made from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower
>
> Looking at examples of this tag in OSM I would guess that out of the <4,000 
> objects worldwide most of them do not conform to that definition. Many of 
> them are small mobile phone/cell site "masts", towers less than 100m, or very 
> tall guyed masts.
>
> I'd like to retag the structures near me to something more suitable - however 
> the wiki pages aren't very clear in distinguishing between the various 
> constructions and sizes for masts and towers.
>
> Hopefully people can agree that the following should be tagged as 
> man_made=mast or tower + tower:type=communication + tower:construction + 
> height? Using TV transmitters in the UK as examples:
>
> mast - guyed lattice, 306m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durris_transmitting_station
> mast - guyed tube, 351m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_transmitting_station
> tower - lattice, 219m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_transmitting_station
> tower - freestanding, 330m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emley_Moor_transmitting_station
>
> But how should these examples be tagged in OSM? All of them are 
> self-supporting structures, so in engineering terms they are not masts.
>
> https://binged.it/2xILZO9
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2361955
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2337468
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charwelton_BT_Tower
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2053885
> https://binged.it/2xTxcQK
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzienne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2162874
>
> Fortunately all three of the tags are now all displayed on the standard layer 
> so there shouldn't be any tagging for the renderer. But it would be good to 
> fix the definitions and make the wiki much clearer, especially with more 
> example photos. Then also ensuring the tags are well supported in each 
> editor's presets.
>
> Cheers
>
> ___
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Oct 2018, at 06:07, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> 
> I suspect it comes from observing European-style radio towers (for
> example, Fernsehturm Berlin[1]).


For the record: the mother of all these towers with a shaft in reinforced 
concrete is actually in Stuttgart: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm_Stuttgart

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Bill Ricker]

> only one in the Western Hemisphere,
>

I presume you're thinking of Toronto's CN Tower, but the Space Needle in
Seattle though listed as an Observation Tower has a transmitter spike on
top, so serves the same dual purposes as Fernsehturms in Germany, as TV
transmitter and tourist trap.

There are a goodly number of smaller hilltop closed, cylindrical concrete
microwave towers in USA, with protected interior stairs, built initially
for a survivable phone and classified networks, by AT and WHCA. Concrete,
tower, for antennae. But no public observation gallery.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:19:58 +0200
SelfishSeahorse  wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> >  
> > > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> > > definition.  
> >
> >
> > it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it?  
> 
> It would already be helpful if there actually were a common definition
> to distinguish masts from towers.
> 
> By the way, i've written a message to the person who added the
> definition to the wiki that 'a tower is accessible and provides
> platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it' [1]
> and asked him where this definition comes from and what 'accessible'
> exactly means (a ladder also provides access).

I suspect it comes from observing European-style radio towers (for
example, Fernsehturm Berlin[1]).  The confusion comes from the fact
that these are virtually unknown outside of Europe and Asia -- there's
only one in the Western Hemisphere, and none in Africa.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm_Berlin

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2018, at 20:19, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> a tower is accessible and provides
> platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it' [1]
> and asked him where this definition comes from and what 'accessible'
> exactly means (a ladder also provides access).


while a ladder is clearly intended for access, there is a difference to a 
staircase or elevator, I guess you can also see it?

I agree the wiki definitions / wording can be improved.

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> > definition.
>
>
> it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it?

It would already be helpful if there actually were a common definition
to distinguish masts from towers.

By the way, i've written a message to the person who added the
definition to the wiki that 'a tower is accessible and provides
platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it' [1]
and asked him where this definition comes from and what 'accessible'
exactly means (a ladder also provides access).

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dmast=next=795248

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2018, at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> definition.


it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it?

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

Looking at the definition on the wikiproject telecom
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Telecoms (in the part
"Antennas / Masts / Towers", there is a section to indicate how to tag the
mast, tower ...:

>From my understandings, the three (four) cases are currently :
- a vertical structure supported by anchors for a mast;
- a free-standing structure for a tower (it can be a tower of 10 meters or
150 meters !);
- and the communication_tower is only a sub-category of a tower, for the
ones with an height > 100 meters (i suppose it is an historic method to get
big tower rendered differently without knowing the height exactly - for the
towers that are a clear landscape reference).
(- And for antenna (alone) on buildings,  there is "telecom=antenna".)

Probably most of the mast are only accessible via ladder, and most of the
big tower have a platform (i don't know if all of them does), but does it
really matter ?

The question i could see is : do we really need the communication_tower tag
or should it be a secondary tag of the tower itself (like tower_type=*) ? I
think it is useful to distinguish them somehow as it is useful as a
landmark on the map, but am i alone to think that ?

Le dim. 30 sept. 2018 à 18:04, SelfishSeahorse 
a écrit :

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two
> definitions.
> > >
> > > they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people
> (not only for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it
> would be a mast.
> >
> > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> > definition. OSM-specific definitions are prone to create confusion and
> > tagging mistakes.
>
> PS: Except if this appears to be a common definition.
>
> ___
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> >
> > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two 
> > > definitions.
> >
> > they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not 
> > only for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it would be 
> > a mast.
>
> I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> definition. OSM-specific definitions are prone to create confusion and
> tagging mistakes.

PS: Except if this appears to be a common definition.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions.
>
> they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not only 
> for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it would be a mast.

I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
definition. OSM-specific definitions are prone to create confusion and
tagging mistakes.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2018, at 14:39, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions.


they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not only 
for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it would be a mast.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 03:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast says that
>
> "In structural engineering, mast is a vertical structure, supported by 
> external guys and anchors.
>
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to 
> differentiate masts and towers."
>
> but then shows an photo example of a "mast" with no guys.

Thanks for pointing to that definition -- i wasn't aware of it. The
confusion on the wiki seems to come from the fact that 'the terms
"mast" and "tower" are often used interchangeably', as noted on
Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers#Mast_or_tower?

That is, we have two contradictory definitions on the wiki: the
engineering definition according to which a tower is freestanding and
mast guyed, and the other definition according to which 'a tower is
accessible and provides platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder
steps to climb it'. (Where does this latter definition come from?)

To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 00:54, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Michael Booth  wrote:
>
> I fail to understand the difference between a
> man_made=communications_tower and man_made=tower +
> tower:type=communication. Aren't all towers far visible landmarks?
> When is a tower huge? The wiki page also says that 'another indication
> is, that a man_made=communications_tower has stairs and a lift inside,
> whereas as man_made=tower, tower:type=communication has to be climbed
> on the outside.' However this is contradictory with the definition of
> man_made=tower: 'a tower is accessible and provides platforms, whereas
> a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it.'
>
> It might be better to discourage man_made=communications_tower and tag
> them man_made=tower + tower:type=communication + height=*.
>
> > I'd like to retag the structures near me to something more suitable -
> however the wiki pages aren't very clear in distinguishing between the
> various constructions and sizes for masts and towers.
>
> I'm not an expert on this, but i think the distinction steps/lift
> inside (= tower) vs latter outside (= mast) makes sense.
>

Agree with you both that the definitions are contradictory :-(
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast says that

"In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
external guys and anchors.

This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
differentiate masts and towers."

but then shows an photo example of a "mast" with no guys.


> 1. https://binged.it/2xILZO9
> > 2. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2361955
> > 3. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2337468
> > 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charwelton_BT_Tower
> > 5. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2053885
> > 6. https://binged.it/2xTxcQK
> > 7. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzienne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq
> > 8. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2162874
>
> Why aren't 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 masts and 4 and 7 towers? Because the
> structure itself is an antenna?
>

Going by that definition, none of them are masts are they're not guyed? But
this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.3092365,153.0188494,3a,26.8y,208.74h,113.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5_tHVpvyp4DL3A_9vMPZYw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5_tHVpvyp4DL3A_9vMPZYw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D306.1943%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
*is* a mast.


> By the way, i'm wondering if poles with mounted antennas like in the
> following image can also be called masts or if man_made=pole
> (undocumented, but 2 047 uses so far) would be better?
>

Possibly so, but by your own question "When is a tower huge?", when does a
pole become a mast / tower? :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Michael Booth  wrote:
>
> The Wiki definition is: "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications 
> It is often made from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower
>
> Looking at examples of this tag in OSM I would guess that out of the <4,000 
> objects worldwide most of them do not conform to that definition. Many of 
> them are small mobile phone/cell site "masts", towers less than 100m, or very 
> tall guyed masts.

I fail to understand the difference between a
man_made=communications_tower and man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication. Aren't all towers far visible landmarks?
When is a tower huge? The wiki page also says that 'another indication
is, that a man_made=communications_tower has stairs and a lift inside,
whereas as man_made=tower, tower:type=communication has to be climbed
on the outside.' However this is contradictory with the definition of
man_made=tower: 'a tower is accessible and provides platforms, whereas
a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it.'

It might be better to discourage man_made=communications_tower and tag
them man_made=tower + tower:type=communication + height=*.

> I'd like to retag the structures near me to something more suitable - however 
> the wiki pages aren't very clear in distinguishing between the various 
> constructions and sizes for masts and towers.

I'm not an expert on this, but i think the distinction steps/lift
inside (= tower) vs latter outside (= mast) makes sense.

> Hopefully people can agree that the following should be tagged as 
> man_made=mast or tower + tower:type=communication + tower:construction + 
> height? Using TV transmitters in the UK as examples:
>
> * mast - guyed lattice, 306m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durris_transmitting_station
> * mast - guyed tube, 351m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_transmitting_station
> * tower - lattice, 219m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_transmitting_station
> * tower - freestanding, 330m: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emley_Moor_transmitting_station

I would have tagged them the same.

> But how should these examples be tagged in OSM? All of them are 
> self-supporting structures, so in engineering terms they are not masts.
>
> 1. https://binged.it/2xILZO9
> 2. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2361955
> 3. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2337468
> 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charwelton_BT_Tower
> 5. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2053885
> 6. https://binged.it/2xTxcQK
> 7. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzienne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq
> 8. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2162874

Why aren't 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 masts and 4 and 7 towers? Because the
structure itself is an antenna?

By the way, i'm wondering if poles with mounted antennas like in the
following image can also be called masts or if man_made=pole
(undocumented, but 2 047 uses so far) would be better?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mobilfunkmasten_auf_Wohnhaus_Gotzingerplatz_Muenchen.JPG

Regards
Markus

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

[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Michael Booth]

Hi,

I opened an issue on the rendering of man_made=communications_tower on 
the standard layer over on OSM-carto: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3414 and 
think there should be a discussion about the tagging as well.


The Wiki definition is: *"**a huge tower for transmitting radio 
applications It is often made from concrete and usually a far 
visible landmark."* 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower


Looking at examples of this tag in OSM I would guess that out of the 
<4,000 objects worldwide most of them do not conform to that definition. 
Many of them are small mobile phone/cell site "masts", towers less than 
100m, or very tall guyed masts.


I'd like to retag the structures near me to something more suitable - 
however the wiki pages aren't very clear in distinguishing between the 
various constructions and sizes for masts and towers.


Hopefully people can agree that the following should be tagged as 
man_made=mast or tower + tower:type=communication + tower:construction + 
height? Using TV transmitters in the UK as examples:


 * mast - guyed lattice, 306m:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durris_transmitting_station
 * mast - guyed tube, 351m:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_transmitting_station
 * tower - lattice, 219m:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_transmitting_station
 * tower - freestanding, 330m:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emley_Moor_transmitting_station

But how should these examples be tagged in OSM? All of them are 
self-supporting structures, so in engineering terms they are not masts.


1. https://binged.it/2xILZO9
2. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2361955
3. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2337468
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charwelton_BT_Tower
5. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2053885
6. https://binged.it/2xTxcQK
7. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzienne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq
8. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2162874

Fortunately all three of the tags are now all displayed on the standard 
layer so there shouldn't be any tagging for the renderer. But it would 
be good to fix the definitions and make the wiki much clearer, 
especially with more example photos. Then also ensuring the tags are 
well supported in each editor's presets.


Cheers

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