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 <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 04:03, SelfishSeahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building>" > 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
