On 29/11/18 22:21, Sergio Manzi wrote:
*At the end of the day... I think this proposal has same serious
issues: the use of an antenna system can be decided only if you have
internal knowledge of what it is actually used for, not just looking
at the antenna. Also, either we define a very broad range of usage
cases or a very fine list of them (in the hundreds, I guess...). *I'll
probably vote against...*
*
Don't give up! *
*Still thinking about this. Perhaps 'use' is the wrong term? Could
'system' be better? After all TV is a 'system'?
It is all about the words and there meaning.
Mappers come to associate a particular antenna with TV so they map it as
a TV antenna, not realising that the antenna frequency and polarization
are specific to their area of the world. That is fine... it may not be
as precise as an 'expert' would map it as but it is a start. Better than
just mapping it as an antenna, has just a little more detail. The
use/system is what most mappers appear to be tagging.
*
*
**
On a broader account, do we really want OSM to become a "database of
the world", with all its details/, /even fine technical details which
IMHO are more fit to the blueprints of an infrastructure?
Unfortunately mappers will map things as they see them. And some will
want to add more and more detail.
Keeping that detail in some order is what I am on about here. At present
it is all going into antenna:type, system, polarization, configuration
... everything ..
I'd prefer some more organisation than simply lumping it all together
under one tag.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
