Re: [OSM-talk-be] BIPT antennas

2020-03-09 Thread Vucodil via Talk-be 
Hello everyone,

Already thanks for all the feedback! I answer some of your questions in the 
following topics:

Continuous update (@Midgard and @rodeo.be )

It was in the back of my head but I didn't want to plan it yet. I will probably 
work on that but not soon.
Note that the list of BIPT antennas is updated monthly. Is there server for 
scheduled scripts within OSM BE ?

Workflow (@Midgard)

The distance triggering manual review has been changed to 25m.

> 3) And even then, just dumping elements in OSM without manual review is not 
> considered best
   > practice, but since it's only nodes, things are relatively simple and I 
won't object. I would
   > just like to see that they're not placed too close to any other existing 
node, but that can be
   > checked automatically.

Like one meter? Is there JOSM tool for that?

BIPT (@Thibault Rommel)

I agree. I updated the proposal

Latitude and longitude as tag (@s8evq and @Midgard)

That's a mistake. I only wanted to explain that I use the longitude and 
latitude provided in the dataset. It has been updated.

Open data Portal (@rodeo.be)

Good idea. I will inform BIPT of the positive feedback of the OSM BE community 
and I will kindly push them to do so.

Precision of the localisation

Looking alone at 9000 nodes for manual review is quite some work. Would it be 
acceptable to have a FIXME tag stating that the localization could be a few 
meters offset? Or is it considered to pollute the OSM db to do so?

Tagging (@Lionel, @Karel Adams, @midgard)

If I had found the discussion from 2018 before, I would have maybe not prepared 
the import :-D.

What to map?

The BITP dataset include a list of sites used in our mobile phone network. Each 
site can include multiple supports for antennas. And each support can include 
multiple directional antennas.
There is no info on the support in the dataset. That's why I focused on mapping 
the antennas (or the group of antennas). Are they enough visible in our 
landscape? 

I think so. On rooftop in cities, those groups of antennas are often visible. 
Their white color is often even more visible than the support itself. 

On other structures like tower, @lionel already mentioned that the antennas 
could be tagged with telecom=antenna 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040276.html.

I can understand that there is no proper way to tag the antennas and the group 
of antennas without specifying the support but it seems a bit limiting. 

How to map it?

@Lionel, you didn't comment on the man_made=antenna tag (Status: in use) which 
was also mentioned in the discussion of 2018.
There is also this proposal from nov 2018 where the man_made=antenna + 
antenna:application=mobile_phone is suggested 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use)

In any case, I don't have enough experiences on tagging and I will follow what 
comes out of this discussion.

Best regards,

Vucodil

March 9, 2020 11:39:20 AM CET Lionel Giard  wrote:
Cool news that they gave the authorization to use it ! And it is always great 
to have some interest on the telecom side. :D I'll give what i know and some 
opinion on the tagging. ^_^

For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion in October 2018 on 
Tagging mailing list 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html) 
and one output was that the current scheme is probably not good (but nothing 
was decided) ! :p 

I had done some manual cleaning on the mast/tower tags 2 years ago i think - i 
looked at mapillary footage especially for mast/tower along motorways where it 
is often easy to spot them or did some survey (and we are not many to map these 
structure so it was quite easy :p ). And the current tagging scheme should be 
(following the wiki and what was clarified in the discussion) :
EITHER : 
- man_made=mast / tower (really subjective, as we don't have real difference 
but mainly: a tower is generally freestanding and often larger diameter/width 
(think about (often) concrete telecom tower), while a mast generally have often 
some guy wires and/or have a small diameter/width (think about metallic mast).
- tower:type=communication
- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice / guyed_lattice / guyed_tube 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US)
- communication:mobile_phone=yes (if GSM, which should be the case for all thse 
one).
- height=* (if known)
OR
- telecom=antenna (there is no real other tag for antenna alone, and this one 
is using the telecom=* key as some people want to clarify things).
- communication:mobile_phone=yes (if GSM, which should be the case for all thse 
one).  
- height=* (if known).

=> Those two are two different things : the first one is a structure that 
support some antennas (typical GSM mast support multiple antennas), and the 
second is a standalone antenna (on a rooftop for example). The BIPT only give 
antennas, so we must first determine if it

Re: [OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas

2020-03-09 Thread rodeo .be 
Hello Vucodil

fantastic news from the BIPT. I would advise you to ask the BIPT to share
the list as well on the federal government open data portal
. It is only a small step for them now (they already
approved us using the data).
I see some advantages in that: it will stimulate other federal
organisations to do the same, and they'll be (hopefully) more inclined to
keep the list updated with new antennas and operators.

Other question: how will we keep everything up to date? Imagine a new
version of the list is released in 1y. How can we easily check the
information on OSM is up to date?

KR
Maarten

Op zo 8 mrt. 2020 om 14:16 schreef Vucodil via Talk-be <
talk-be@openstreetmap.org>:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Recently, we got the permission from ibpt.be to use their data in
> OpenStreetMap:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ibpt_belgium_antennas
> This includes all the antennas (more than 9000) managed by the three
> operators (Proximus, Mobistar and Telenet) with the info on who manages
> which antennas and their localisation.
>
> I wish to import them in a semi-automatic import. But before that, I wish
> to have your feedback on the:
>
> *General workflow*
>
> For the workflow, you can find it at the end of the import wiki page. The
> main idea is that the antennas to close to existing antennas will be
> manually reviewed.
> What do you think about that? Is it safe enough?
>
> *Tags to use*
>
> As there is around 300 antennas currently in Belgium (
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QPC) and considering that this import will
> bring more than 9000 antennas, I think the tags of the import should be
> carefully chosen.
> The tags for the objects related to telecoms are not well defined. Various
> sources of information are available (see at the end of this email).
> If we choose to only map the antenna itself by excluding the support
> (mast, tower, roof, ...), it seems to exist two tags:
>
> - man_made=antenna (
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna#overview)
> - telecoms=antenna (
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=telecom&value=antenna)
>
> the first one being much more used. That's the one that I suggest. You can
> see more details on the tagging here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ibpt_belgium_antennas#Data_Preparation
>
> With the data from IBPT, it make sense to only focus on the antenna itself
> and not on the support as we don't have any information on it.
> In cities, it will usually be on roofs or underground like in tunnels but
> in the countryside, it is often on communication towers.
>
> Mapping only the antenna enable us to later map more complex things like
> in this proposal
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png
> 
> where I really like the separation between:
>
> - antenna
> - support
> - station
>
> Note that today, most antennas in Belgium are mapped via their support
> (mast or tower).
>
>
> What do you think about the tagging that I suggest? Does it make sense ?
>
> Vucodil
>
>
> PS: I sent two mails in a week about import. It is a coincidence, I'm not
> doing only that!
>
> Sources of information:
>
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Telecoms
> -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecommunications_tower
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcommunications_tower
> -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Proposed_features/Key:antenna#Les_antennes_t.C3.A9l.C3.A9com
> - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-April/001970.html
> - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-April/001971.html
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas

2020-03-09 Thread Pieter Vander Vennet 
Maybe "ref:BE:BIPT=", "operator=Proximux" and "ref:operator=",
this makes eventual retagging a breeze when someone renames


On 09.03.20 11:39, Lionel Giard wrote:
> Cool news that they gave the authorization to use it ! And it is
> always great to have some interest on the telecom side. :D I'll give
> what i know and some opinion on the tagging. ^_^
>
> For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion in October
> 2018 on Tagging mailing list
> (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html)
> and one output was that the current scheme is probably not good (but
> nothing was decided) ! :p 
>
> I had done some manual cleaning on the mast/tower tags 2 years ago i
> think - i looked at mapillary footage especially for mast/tower along
> motorways where it is often easy to spot them or did some survey (and
> we are not many to map these structure so it was quite easy :p ). And
> the current tagging scheme should be (following the wiki and what was
> clarified in the discussion) :
>
> EITHER : 
> *- man_made=mast / tower *(really subjective, as we don't have
> real difference but mainly: a tower is generally freestanding and
> often larger diameter/width (think about (often) concrete telecom
> tower), while a mast generally have often some guy wires and/or
> have a small diameter/width (think about metallic mast).
> *- tower:type=communication*
> *- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice / guyed_lattice /
> guyed_tube*
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US)
> *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the
> case for all thse one).
> - *height=* *(if known)
>
> OR
> - *telecom=antenna* (there is no real other tag for antenna alone,
> and this one is using the telecom=* key as some people want to
> clarify things).
> *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the
> case for all thse one).  
> - *height=** (if known).
>
>
> => Those two are two different things : the first one is a structure
> that support some antennas (typical GSM mast support multiple
> antennas), and the second is a standalone antenna (on a rooftop for
> example). _*The BIPT only give antennas, so we must first determine if
> it is standalone or on a mast or tower.*_
>
> There is no approved tagging of multiple antennas on 1 mast or tower
> (you mention the "Radio antennas mapping proposal" but it seems really
> complicated and easy to break with the relations...). Maybe we should
> just create _a custom belgian tag _(similar to how the french are
> tagging their own infrastructure) for the antenna present like : 
> - ref:BE:BIPT=21292
> - ref:BE:Proximus=10DLT_01    (or ref:BE:PXS if we want an
> abbreviation ?! I did use that in the past on street cabinet but i
> could change it)
> - ref:BE:Orange=1-32264-W1
> - ref:BE:Telenet=_BW4629P
> Following what is in the technical data and their ID (i took one
> example having the three operators ;-) ). It would keep the different
> operator information like it is done on street_cabinet for exemple. It
> would also be easier to maintain and more difficult to break, because
> if we put 3 nodes next to each other (1 for each antenna), it would be
> easily broken by anyone editing the area (especially in ID editor). 
>
> Note that, the operator tag is difficult to assess for the mast or
> tower structure as it could be any one of the multiple antenna
> operator or even someone else (and they don't give this information
> publicly). So i would not use the operator tag except on individual
> antenna or mast/tower that would only have 1 antenna. 
>
> We could also use a subtag like antenna=1/2/3/... if we want to give
> the number of antenna on a same support (mast or tower) ? 
>
>
> Note that there was some discussion of a "potential" proposal in the
> discussion to change the tagging of "telecom mast and tower" into
> something looking more like the "power" scheme. Something like that :
> - telecom=tower (similar to power=tower grouping everything into one tag) 
> - structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes, ...
> - tower:type=communication
> - communication:mobile_phone=yes
>
> => This proposal is mainly re-using the common tags used for power
> scheme : structure=* instead of tower:construction (François Lacombe -
> a french mappers involved a lot in telecom scheme - was proposing
> that); and telecom=tower instead of man_made=tower or mast (i was
> proposing that). It would simplify the tagging as we would tag
> everything easily and refine only in the structure tag. But that was
> never formally proposed and approved AFAIK. 
> I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of trying to
> adapt a new tagging scheme for this ahah. *Anyway we can use the
> current scheme as it would be easier now. ;-) 
> *
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lionel
>
> Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36, Midgard

Re: [OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas

2020-03-09 Thread Lionel Giard 
Cool news that they gave the authorization to use it ! And it is always
great to have some interest on the telecom side. :D I'll give what i know
and some opinion on the tagging. ^_^

For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion in October 2018
on Tagging mailing list (
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html)
and one output was that the current scheme is probably not good (but
nothing was decided) ! :p

I had done some manual cleaning on the mast/tower tags 2 years ago i think
- i looked at mapillary footage especially for mast/tower along motorways
where it is often easy to spot them or did some survey (and we are not many
to map these structure so it was quite easy :p ). And the current tagging
scheme should be (following the wiki and what was clarified in the
discussion) :

EITHER :
*- man_made=mast / tower *(really subjective, as we don't have real
difference but mainly: a tower is generally freestanding and often larger
diameter/width (think about (often) concrete telecom tower), while a mast
generally have often some guy wires and/or have a small diameter/width
(think about metallic mast).
*- tower:type=communication*
*- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice / guyed_lattice / guyed_tube* (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US)
*- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the case for
all thse one).
- *height=* *(if known)

OR
- *telecom=antenna* (there is no real other tag for antenna alone, and this
one is using the telecom=* key as some people want to clarify things).
*- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the case for
all thse one).
- *height=** (if known).


=> Those two are two different things : the first one is a structure that
support some antennas (typical GSM mast support multiple antennas), and the
second is a standalone antenna (on a rooftop for example). *The BIPT only
give antennas, so we must first determine if it is standalone or on a mast
or tower.*

There is no approved tagging of multiple antennas on 1 mast or tower (you
mention the "Radio antennas mapping proposal" but it seems really
complicated and easy to break with the relations...). Maybe we should just
create *a custom belgian tag *(similar to how the french are tagging their
own infrastructure) for the antenna present like :
- ref:BE:BIPT=21292
- ref:BE:Proximus=10DLT_01(or ref:BE:PXS if we want an abbreviation ?!
I did use that in the past on street cabinet but i could change it)
- ref:BE:Orange=1-32264-W1
- ref:BE:Telenet=_BW4629P
Following what is in the technical data and their ID (i took one example
having the three operators ;-) ). It would keep the different operator
information like it is done on street_cabinet for exemple. It would also be
easier to maintain and more difficult to break, because if we put 3 nodes
next to each other (1 for each antenna), it would be easily broken by
anyone editing the area (especially in ID editor).

Note that, the operator tag is difficult to assess for the mast or tower
structure as it could be any one of the multiple antenna operator or even
someone else (and they don't give this information publicly). So i would
not use the operator tag except on individual antenna or mast/tower that
would only have 1 antenna.

We could also use a subtag like antenna=1/2/3/... if we want to give the
number of antenna on a same support (mast or tower) ?


Note that there was some discussion of a "potential" proposal in the
discussion to change the tagging of "telecom mast and tower" into something
looking more like the "power" scheme. Something like that :
- telecom=tower (similar to power=tower grouping everything into one tag)
- structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes, ...
- tower:type=communication
- communication:mobile_phone=yes

=> This proposal is mainly re-using the common tags used for power scheme :
structure=* instead of tower:construction (François Lacombe - a french
mappers involved a lot in telecom scheme - was proposing that); and
telecom=tower instead of man_made=tower or mast (i was proposing that). It
would simplify the tagging as we would tag everything easily and refine
only in the structure tag. But that was never formally proposed and
approved AFAIK.
I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of trying to adapt a
new tagging scheme for this ahah.
*Anyway we can use the current scheme as it would be easier now. ;-) *

Kind Regards,
Lionel

Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36, Midgard  a écrit :

> Replying inline to s8evq and Karel:
>
> Quoting s8evq (2020-03-08 20:20:34)
> > What is the point of adding longitude=* and latitude=* to the nodes?
>
> I had overlooked them, but these tags definitely have to be dropped.
>
> > How precise are the locations of the antennas in the BIPT dataset? Do we
> know what the quality of this data is before importing?
>
> The ten or so that I checked were pretty close, within 5 metres. One was
> eith