Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de wrote: If we want to extend the tagging, we should use a new but generic tag (camera?) in my opinion. Yes, this may result in parallel tagging - but we should not run in the next cul-de-sac with one's eyes open. We already have some tags which are not specifying the purpose of an element (highway=road or building=yes). I wouldn't have problems with that. But imho, the public webcams are the exception and most of the time, the camera is for surveillance. This can fixed later when you discover later that's a public webcam. Note that sometimes, it can be hard to map., e.g. this pole with 11 cctv's in China :) http://weibo.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/11/portique1.jpg or that one with ~60 cams (in China again): http://weibo.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/11/portique2.jpg Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Dear all, sorry for my long silence, but I was away. I seems that my opinion are minoritarian, but still I want make one last try to explain things clearly and then I will shut up on this subject. 1. Why is man_made bad * It's a very unclear category anyway. If you have an historic interest, than you may find out that it was originally thought to map outstanding features in mainly natural environment - so from that perspective - man_made maybe makes sense for a break-water on a else natural cost, or an adit in a mountain region. = but never I seems logical to anybody to tag a CCT-cam in a restaurant with the tag man_made. Am 30.11.2013 um 18:41 schrieb Jonathan: Clearly, man_made has become a dumping ground for anything not natural that we can't be bothered to tag somewhere else! Man_made probably needs clearing up and surveillance probably shouldn't be under it, however it is under it and none of that effects the question of webcams. Jonathan +1 for cleaning up man_made!!! 2. Why surveillance cannot be the main tag, but it must be camera ** Camera is what it is. Surveillance is what you do - sometimes - with it. You will not call a car driver, because you drive with it. And then, call a bike driver=rider, because you ride the bike, and you have to use the same tag because a car and a bike have both wheels ... Am 30.11.2013 um 12:17 schrieb Jonathan: A camera recording a public space is performing surveillance over that space, be it a webcam, police cam, traffic cam or nature cam. It's a camera. Jonathan NON. The webcams we are talking about are not surveillance cams. The intent of a device IS important. Not every camera is placed there in the intent you do surveillance. Webcams are generally placed exactly in a way NOT to show any persons (often also they are forced to do so by law). You can argue that they do surveillance of the mountain they are showing, but believe me, the mountains very rarely move and do absolutely not care if they are watched by a ant or not. I do not call a building having a coffee machine in it a cafe, but I only call it this if I actually can go there and drink a coffee. I completely agree on the importance of tagging Surveillance cams. (I just mapped several pubs in my city with man_made=surveillance because they added surveillance cams, and I want people to stop going there). Civil rights are important, and I completely agree on fighting for them. But let's stop being ideologic and see only this. Am 30.11.2013 um 15:39 schrieb John F. Eldredge: Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may be sent, encrypted, to some other point. I do not think in the OSM context it matters what kind of technology is used. But we map identifiable features. Is there a camera, that I can see or that I can know that is there? = so it's a camera. Is the camera a surveillance camera to watch people? = so it's surveillance. Is it a camera that shows a picture of the scenery, of a mountain, of the weather and normally not people? = so it's a webcam. (a camera to inform people about weather and snow conditions, normally viewable on the world wide web, that's what the name comes from. So a internet connected surveillance cam does clearly not qualify for this.). 3. Making tagging locial or keep it as it was to make life simple for renderer? *** * completely agree on not changing tags too often. * But a renderer is much easier to adapt to new rules than the mind of thousands of mappers (especially if OSM is interested to have new people join in). * Unlogical tagging leads to more of ** not mapping at all = this is what seems to happen with webcams, and is the primary reason why Egil started this whole discussion. ** people mapping how the like and so we get different mappings for the same thing = this is a nightmare, and more difficult to handle for renders than a well documented tagging change followed by a properly done mechanical edit. Am 30.11.2013 um 12:17 schrieb Jonathan: I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the time being, changing that is a whole other thread. Ok, so let's define at least a future architecture, and let's move to it step by step each time we work on a tag. 4. The initial idea was: give people a tag to properly tag webcams Am 01.12.2013 um 15:18 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I did not initially want man_made=surveillance, but I was met with strong opinions against splitting from man_made=surveillance. So don't do it if you think it's wrong. But given 21 735 man_made=surveillance it is too late now. It is never too late. This can be changed. I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
2013/12/2 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
is it? The long standing interpretation was that website is about the
official website of a feature, while url is just another / some webpage.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/12/2 Pieren pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
is it? The long standing interpretation was that website is about
the official website of a feature, while url is just another / some
webpage.
I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by website for
better readability by non-techies.
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 02.12.2013 15:22, Zecke wrote: Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: The long standing interpretation was that website is about the official website of a feature, while url is just another / some webpage. I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by website for better readability by non-techies. I agree with Martins interpretation: URL should be replaced by more specific tags like website, wikipedia, or image - but only if one of those actually fits. Because website is for the official website of the feature, urls of third-party websites still belong into the url key. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 02.12.2013 11:31, schrieb Pieren:
Adding a sub-tag will simply move the current 21700
man_made=surveillance elements without subtags in uncertainty.
OK, that is a point, I agree here.
I still think that a (public) webcam could be tagged differently from
a CCTV because it's not the same purpose and not the same legislation
even if it is a camera and may transit throught the net. One is
public, the other not.
May I suggest:
man_made=public_webcam
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
May I suggest another direction to move in the situation?
I see a camera - but absolutely do not know which purpose it has.
Both opportunities (surveillance/webcam) are possible with this
installation.
Which tag should I use then?
Shall I have to dig it out before tagging?
Or shall I simply ignore the camera and do not tag it?
If we want to extend the tagging, we should use a new but generic tag
(camera?) in my opinion.
Yes, this may result in parallel tagging - but we should not run in the
next cul-de-sac with one's eyes open.
Georg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam=url name=* operator=* description=* camera:direction= compass degrees * camera:angle = horizontal angle of view * * means optional This sound completely crazy to me. Why not: man_made:surveillance:url:contact=http://... ; image_only_it's_a_camera_please_do_not_phone_the_device A newbie looking for a way to map a webcam will just not map it. A scheme with camera=webcam/surveillance/... url=* should be sufficient, like Nounours proposed. Having a new proposal with a camera=... key is a big task, but man_made=surveillance seems insanely pompous to me. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 01. des. 2013 00:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Having background from Session Initiation Protocol it made sense to me. The Contact SIP header is like Contact:http://example.com/webcam;video video is a Contact header parameter indicating video streaming capability. OK, that was slightly OT. The important thing is to settle for a key to tag the URL for webcams and get it documented. --Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 01. des. 2013 09:52, yvecai wrote: On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam=url name=* operator=* description=* camera:direction= compass degrees * camera:angle = horizontal angle of view * * means optional This sound completely crazy to me. Why not: man_made:surveillance:url:contact=http://... ; image_only_it's_a_camera_please_do_not_phone_the_device A newbie looking for a way to map a webcam will just not map it. A scheme with camera=webcam/surveillance/... url=* should be sufficient, like Nounours proposed. Having a new proposal with a camera=... key is a big task, but man_made=surveillance seems insanely pompous to me. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I did not initially want man_made=surveillance, but I was met with strong opinions against splitting from man_made=surveillance. And, yes it can be argued that there is a lot of overlap between surveillance webcameras and tourist webcams. I too think that it would be more logical that the primary key for camera was camera, and that the purpose (surveilance|weather) was a secondary key. But given 21 735 man_made=surveillance it is too late now. I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done. I think the key here is to use contact:webcam=url . That alone is enough to get make an overlay map of webcams. And it makes sense to reuse much of man_made=surveillance tags for more detailed annotations. Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Am 01.12.2013 15:18, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 09:52, yvecai wrote: On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam=url name=* operator=* description=* camera:direction= compass degrees * camera:angle = horizontal angle of view * * means optional This sound completely crazy to me. Why not: man_made:surveillance:url:contact=http://... ; image_only_it's_a_camera_please_do_not_phone_the_device A newbie looking for a way to map a webcam will just not map it. A scheme with camera=webcam/surveillance/... url=* should be sufficient, like Nounours proposed. Having a new proposal with a camera=... key is a big task, but man_made=surveillance seems insanely pompous to me. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I did not initially want man_made=surveillance, but I was met with strong opinions against splitting from man_made=surveillance. And, yes it can be argued that there is a lot of overlap between surveillance webcameras and tourist webcams. I too think that it would be more logical that the primary key for camera was camera, and that the purpose (surveilance|weather) was a secondary key. But given 21 735 man_made=surveillance it is too late now. I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done. I think the key here is to use contact:webcam=url . That alone is enough to get make an overlay map of webcams. And it makes sense to reuse much of man_made=surveillance tags for more detailed annotations. Egil ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Yes, it's defined there, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It's used 180 times worldwide according to taginfo. A check through first 50 values listed in taginfo [1] reveals: 1) all of them are website urls 2) most of the URLs are dead or wrong 3) the valid ones are mixed: some refer to the image, some to a website containing the image, some probably even to a fixed image (not updated), but I couldn't check that properly. 4) 80 values are from the same domain and refer to cameras of the same operator or organization: http://www1.eot.state.ma.us/cam_updated_images/*.jpg To conclude this I would say: The tag is not yet used much (especially due to (4)). It is not used in a unified way (see (3)) Therefore it's not useable in the current form. And as it doesn't fit semantically (it's not a URL to contact someone, but to see something), I don't see a big issue in fixing that by moving the tag to another key and to define it better. regards Peter [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Awebcam#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 00:44 +0100, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. In the case of CCTV, and in the UK at least, there has to be signage with contact details of the organisation monitoring the images. Somebody pointing a webcam at a public place is probably covered by the same law, although I imagine enforcement is probably lacking here. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 12/01/2013 03:18 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done. I can't blame you for that :) I think the key here is to use contact:webcam=url . That alone is enough to get make an overlay map of webcams. And it makes sense to reuse much of man_made=surveillance tags for more detailed annotations. Yes, you have a single tag is sufficient to map a webcam. I don't like it, but it's simple ! Cheers Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Yes! http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 14:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
I would agree, the contact key has not taken off and may fit for phone or fax (although the old way is still more popular) the use for webcam is back to front. Was the original intention to cover video calls like skype? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 17:11, Peter Wendorff wrote: Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Yes, it's defined there, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It's used 180 times worldwide according to taginfo. A check through first 50 values listed in taginfo [1] reveals: 1) all of them are website urls 2) most of the URLs are dead or wrong 3) the valid ones are mixed: some refer to the image, some to a website containing the image, some probably even to a fixed image (not updated), but I couldn't check that properly. 4) 80 values are from the same domain and refer to cameras of the same operator or organization: http://www1.eot.state.ma.us/cam_updated_images/*.jpg To conclude this I would say: The tag is not yet used much (especially due to (4)). It is not used in a unified way (see (3)) Therefore it's not useable in the current form. And as it doesn't fit semantically (it's not a URL to contact someone, but to see something), I don't see a big issue in fixing that by moving the tag to another key and to define it better. regards Peter [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Awebcam#values ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
Yes, I was vague in my comments. What I meant was that most, fun/weather/scenic/city cams are open to all comers and therefore providing uncontrolled surveillance where at least police or council cameras are strictly regulated and their feed is largely private (except if used in court). My assertion is that a camera that captures a scene is performing surveillance on an area and should be tagged accordingly. Add extra tags to describe it further but don't remove the surveillance tag. Call me paranoid but in 5 or 10 years time when we have all cameras commonly tagged then you'll be grateful there is just one way of spotting them on a map. Jonathan p.s. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you! ;-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 02:07, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote: I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged accordingly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 14:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may be sent, encrypted, to some other point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I agree with your statement that a camera is doing surveillance, whether privately or available to the public. I disagree with your statement that no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, since, as you just agreed, video being pushed to the Internet isn't necessarily publicly available. Including the definition that a camera that is connected to the Internet necessarily is available to all comers would mean that most security cameras connected to the Internet would not be classed as surveillance cameras. ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote: Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Yes, it's defined there, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It's used 180 times worldwide according to taginfo. A check through first 50 values listed in taginfo [1] reveals: 1) all of them are website urls 2) most of the URLs are dead or wrong 3) the valid ones are mixed: some refer to the image, some to a website containing the image, some probably even to a fixed image (not updated), but I couldn't check that properly. 4) 80 values are from the same domain and refer to cameras of the same operator or organization: http://www1.eot.state.ma.us/cam_updated_images/*.jpg To conclude this I would say: The tag is not yet used much (especially due to (4)). It is not used in a unified way (see (3)) Therefore it's not useable in the current form. And as it doesn't fit semantically (it's not a URL to contact someone, but to see something), I don't see a big issue in fixing that by moving the tag to another key and to define it better. regards Peter [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Awebcam#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Do you have any reference to back up your claim that contact:*= is intended only to provide contact info for reaching humans? As I have stated before, I do not care too much about what the key is, as long as it is documented. As for now, I think contact:webcam is best because of previous work: - it is already in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact - it is proposed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance - it is actually used, although no much Inconsistent usage, dead links for contact=webcam is IMHO not a valid argument against its use. It is just a consequence of poor documentation, so we do not get the full power of crowd sourcing. Regards Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 01.12.2013 21:04, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote: Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:* 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* regards Peter Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Yes, it's defined there, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It's used 180 times worldwide according to taginfo. A check through first 50 values listed in taginfo [1] reveals: 1) all of them are website urls 2) most of the URLs are dead or wrong 3) the valid ones are mixed: some refer to the image, some to a website containing the image, some probably even to a fixed image (not updated), but I couldn't check that properly. 4) 80 values are from the same domain and refer to cameras of the same operator or organization: http://www1.eot.state.ma.us/cam_updated_images/*.jpg To conclude this I would say: The tag is not yet used much (especially due to (4)). It is not used in a unified way (see (3)) Therefore it's not useable in the current form. And as it doesn't fit semantically (it's not a URL to contact someone, but to see something), I don't see a big issue in fixing that by moving the tag to another key and to define it better. regards Peter [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Awebcam#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Do you have any reference to back up your claim that contact:*= is intended only to provide contact info for reaching humans? The contact tag is the prefix for several contact:* keys to describe contacts. [1] [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact:webcam This isn't perfectly what you referred to, but let me try to explain my interpretation of this and why it excludes for example the discussed contact:webcam: For this example, contact:webcam is ambiguous: it may be the webcam operating team inside the operating company or whatever, or it may be the imagery of the webcam. But if it's the latter (which I personally don't agree), then we could extend contact by other stuff, too: A shop with a product catalogue availlable online in a machine readable form could get contact:productlist=xml An installation that can be remote-controlled could get contact:remotecontrol=* I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact to someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in contact to the webcam or someone else. regards Peter As I have stated before, I do not care too much about what the key is, as long as it is documented. As for now, I think contact:webcam is best because of previous work: - it is already in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact - it is proposed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance - it is actually used, although no much Inconsistent usage, dead links for contact=webcam is IMHO not a valid argument against its use. It is just a consequence of poor documentation, so we do not get the full power of crowd sourcing. Regards Egil ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact to someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in contact to the webcam or someone else. regards Peter I agree. Contact usually refers to a way to reach a person; the intuitive meaning of contact in reference to a webcam would be this is how to contact someone if you have questions about the webcam, not this is a way to see what the webcam is currently viewing. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. attachment: john.vcf___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Or this is how you contact someone via webcam such as with skype (BTW I realise that's not a webcam is but some people call it that) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 21:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact to someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in contact to the webcam or someone else. regards Peter I agree. Contact usually refers to a way to reach a person; the intuitive meaning of contact in reference to a webcam would be this is how to contact someone if you have questions about the webcam, not this is a way to see what the webcam is currently viewing. ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the time being, changing that is a whole other thread. The two level tagging is what is currently defined for cameras that film public spaces, I was just suggesting a new value of webcam etc and the addition of a new key of URL. Let's not re-invent the wheel just because we need a bigger cart. A camera recording a public space is performing surveillance over that space, be it a webcam, police cam, traffic cam or nature cam. It's a camera. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 22:54, nounours wrote: BUT: 1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also tag highways, restaurants and buildings as man_made. 2) The two-level tagging seems exagerated in this case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging! why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common? BUT: 1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also tag highways, restaurants and buildings as man_made. what is the logics behind this? We use man_made for technical installations/facilities/structures/devices, a camera is a technical device, restaurants aren't (maybe the kitchen would qualify), buildings aren't (but could have technical facilities to make them work), highways aren't. I do not insist in using man_made for cameras, but IMHO they would fit (like a crane, a chimney, a water_well, etc.). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Why can we not have: man_made=surveillance surveillance:type=webcam surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. url=http:// The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, so you can't say it isn't surveillance because that's what it is. This is in keeping with current usage and allows current renderers to capture any newly added webcams without recoding. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 13:24, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg not living, just thinking: You can surveil the wheather condition, snow condition, forest fire there. ;-) Well, I think I understand what you mean - I would have prefered a generic man_made=camera instead of =surveillance. I normally can not decide which view angle, zoom or purpose it has. Only: There is someone watching - but what and why? Best regards Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may be sent, encrypted, to some other point. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging! why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common? BUT: 1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also tag highways, restaurants and buildings as man_made. what is the logics behind this? We use man_made for technical installations/facilities/structures/devices, a camera is a technical device, restaurants aren't (maybe the kitchen would qualify), buildings aren't (but could have technical facilities to make them work), highways aren't. I do not insist in using man_made for cameras, but IMHO they would fit (like a crane, a chimney, a water_well, etc.). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging You can see that a camera is present, whether or not the video feed from that camera is publicly available. The owner of a particular camera may not choose to disclose what is done with the imagery. Webcam versus closed circuit television describe two different technologies for transmitting the imagery, not whether the imagery is publicly accessible. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged accordingly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 14:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may be sent, encrypted, to some other point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 29. nov. 2013 09:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no mailto:pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented. If something is properly documented in OSM it is a near to perfection as it will ever get ;-) I also think that surveillance does make sense in this context. But if I kindly refer you to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance , you will see that it talk about Big Brother, not about webcams. It does not even define how to link to a image on internet. Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance man_made=surveillance surveillance=webcam contact:webcam=url Seems fine to me. So when only a few hundred webcams displaying landscape are mapped in the world, I would say there is a real problem that people do not know how to map them. Or that not a lot are interested in tagging them. Everyone has different interests - I don't think I would ever map a webcam. But I do map fire hydrants... sometimes ;-) Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging OK, webcam is surveillance then. I am not sure about surveillance=webcam, current values are indoor|outdoor|public, which I think is orthogonal to being a webcam. contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? Taginfo lists 171 contact:webcam , only 53 url:webcam, so contact:webcam has a lead. surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic as mentioned elsewhere in the thread seem to me like a good idea. Should it be allowed with a list of surveillance:zone values, like surveillance:zone=scenic;town or surveillance:zone=scenic;snow ? So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam=url name=* operator=* description=* camera:direction= compass degrees * camera:angle = horizontal angle of view * * means optional In order to handle the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance#more_than_one_camera_mouted_on_a_pole case I suggest make each camera as a relation, the only member is the location node. The location node could be a man_made=mast. The relation could be tagged as type=surveillance, in combination with the tags mentioned above. -- Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
man_made is A tag for identifying man-made /(artificial)/ structures added to the landscape. taken from the Wiki. It's not just technical, and when you look at what is now included under this bizarre heading: adit, clearcut, monitoring_station, pier, snow_net, snow_fence, wastewater_plant, windmill, surveillance and finally works!!?!?!? Clearly, man_made has become a dumping ground for anything not natural that we can't be bothered to tag somewhere else! Man_made probably needs clearing up and surveillance probably shouldn't be under it, however it is under it and none of that effects the question of webcams. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: what is the logics behind this? We use man_made for technical installations/facilities/structures/devices, a camera is a technical device, restaurants aren't (maybe the kitchen would qualify), buildings aren't (but could have technical facilities to make them work), highways aren't. I do not insist in using man_made for cameras, but IMHO they would fit (like a crane, a chimney, a water_well, etc.). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
I agree, contact doesn't make sense. webcam:url=http://... is better Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. 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] preproposal : internet webcam
On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote: I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged accordingly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 14:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may be sent, encrypted, to some other point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I agree with your statement that a camera is doing surveillance, whether privately or available to the public. I disagree with your statement that no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, since, as you just agreed, video being pushed to the Internet isn't necessarily publicly available. Including the definition that a camera that is connected to the Internet necessarily is available to all comers would mean that most security cameras connected to the Internet would not be classed as surveillance cameras. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. attachment: john.vcf___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Hi! 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented. If something is properly documented in OSM it is a near to perfection as it will ever get ;-) I also think that surveillance does make sense in this context. But if I kindly refer you to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance , you will see that it talk about Big Brother, not about webcams. It does not even define how to link to a image on internet. Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance man_made=surveillance surveillance=webcam contact:webcam=url Seems fine to me. So when only a few hundred webcams displaying landscape are mapped in the world, I would say there is a real problem that people do not know how to map them. Or that not a lot are interested in tagging them. Everyone has different interests - I don't think I would ever map a webcam. But I do map fire hydrants... sometimes ;-) Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 08:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance man_made=surveillance surveillance=webcam contact:webcam=url Seems fine to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 08:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance man_made=surveillance surveillance=webcam contact:webcam=url Seems fine to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam: http://www.wetter.tv/de/webcams/riegelsberg_webcam Is it really? You never know. Any webcam is a surveillance cam. The purpose and details of surveillance may vary. Zecke. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg not living, just thinking: You can surveil the wheather condition, snow condition, forest fire there. ;-) Well, I think I understand what you mean - I would have prefered a generic man_made=camera instead of =surveillance. I normally can not decide which view angle, zoom or purpose it has. Only: There is someone watching - but what and why? Best regards Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 13:18, Zecke wrote: Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam: http://www.wetter.tv/de/webcams/riegelsberg_webcam Is it really? You never know. Any webcam is a surveillance cam. The purpose and details of surveillance may vary. Zecke. ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
I have no problem to use a different tag. The purpose is not the same. It's maybe country specific but a webcam is usually not allowed to film the public in such a way that people can be identified. In the opposite, a CCTV can film more things and the aim is to be able to identify faces. Regarding legal aspects and impact on right to privacy, it's very different. I'm not sure that a subtag is enough to distinguish them. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Yves yve...@gmail.com wrote: Also, for me 'surveillance' conotes a security related camera. I fear that if the actual definition is extended to the so called webcam, this connotation will prevent the use of it to webcams. A simple scheme like webcam=weather/yes/..., url= would be so simple ! One problem with the term, webcam, is that it implies internet connected. There are a number of CCTV cameras located in businesses, apartments, condo's, and public buildings. Using the term surveillance, while sounding ominous, might be a better tag. But adding in surveillance=webcam,weather, etc. with the url. The wiki for man_made=surveillance should be updated remove editorial content. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Why can we not have: man_made=surveillance surveillance:type=webcam surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. url=http:// The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, so you can't say it isn't surveillance because that's what it is. This is in keeping with current usage and allows current renderers to capture any newly added webcams without recoding. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 13:24, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg not living, just thinking: You can surveil the wheather condition, snow condition, forest fire there. ;-) Well, I think I understand what you mean - I would have prefered a generic man_made=camera instead of =surveillance. I normally can not decide which view angle, zoom or purpose it has. Only: There is someone watching - but what and why? Best regards Georg ___ 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] preproposal : internet webcam
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Why can we not have: man_made=surveillance surveillance:type=webcam surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. url=http:// The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, so you can't say it isn't surveillance because that's what it is. This is in keeping with current usage and allows current renderers to capture any newly added webcams without recoding. +1 -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on internet. I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node. Tags to use in combination: At least one of url=... for the actual image. website=... for the html page where the cameras are found Other relevant keys taken from man_made=surveillance name= ... name of place operator= camera:direction= camera:angle= description=... description of what you can see in the image. Possibly with language tags fixme=guessed location There are border cases between amenity=webcam and man_made=surveillance. In that case I suggest using both tags. Example: road cameras that show driving conditions on the road. One issue I see is when there are multiple cameras on the same spot, facing different directions. For instance in a mast. Create one node for each camera with the same coordinates? Tie them with an relation? The other alternative, making lists with OSM tags seem very cumbersome? Comments? -- Egil H ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on internet. I would like to (politely :) disagree with your split. man_made=surveillance seems to be perfect IMHO. The word surveillance may feel big-brotherish, but it is literally what a webcam does. It seems to me you could come up with some nice tags to add to the surveillance scheme, such as webcam=public Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Hi Egil, So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on internet. I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node. amenity is definitvely a bad choice. First, we should be careful to tag everything with amenity. Second, an amenity is something you can use/consume when you're on the road, e.g. a bar to drink something or a wastebasket to get rid of something. Even if I agree that it's not man_made=surveillance, it's shares some common features with it. (Besides, man_made is maybe not an ideal tag for surveillance as well, if you look at the other values, it's more some clearly visible features that are put into nature. Maybe directly camera=surveillance camera=webcam camera=traffic_cam would be clearer??? nounours ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
On 28. nov. 2013 20:07, Dan S wrote: 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no: I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on internet. I would like to (politely :) disagree with your split. man_made=surveillance seems to be perfect IMHO. The word surveillance may feel big-brotherish, but it is literally what a webcam does. It seems to me you could come up with some nice tags to add to the surveillance scheme, such as webcam=public Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Considering that mountain paths are tagged as highway, I feel the pieces fall into place now ;-) I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented. But if I kindly refer you to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance , you will see that it talk about Big Brother, not about webcams. It does not even define how to link to a image on internet. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance also focuses on surveillance. I just looked at http://osmcamera.tk/tags.php . Out of 21996 man_made=surveillance in the world, there are just 362 url= and 370 website=. Many of the website= and a few of the url= are just links to the operators of Big Brother non-webcams. After some random sampling, it seem to me that the majority of actual webcams are what I would call surveillance cameras. So when only a few hundred webcams displaying landscape are mapped in the world, I would say there is a real problem that people do not know how to map them. Regaring the multiple cameras on the same spot problem, I just got an idea; Make each camera as a relation, the only member is the location node. -- Egil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
