Maybe "ref:BE:BIPT=XXXX", "operator=Proximux" and "ref:operator=YYYY", 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 <midgard+tal...@janmaes.com > <mailto:midgard%2btal...@janmaes.com>> 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 either very recent, or > 20 metres off. (BIPT has location 51.151194,3.235139 but there's > no structure visible there on > the most recent imagery.) > > In any case, we would get higher quality with a manual review > instead of fully relying on the > source: we can correct errors when the structure is visible on > imagery. > > > Perhaps my questions sound a bit tough, but I appreciate the > effort you put into this. > > Such is an import discussion. Original Poster has my appreciation > too :) > > > On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:46:38 +0000, Karel Adams > <fa348...@skynet.be <mailto:fa348...@skynet.be>> wrote: > > > didn't we > > > have a rule to map only those features visible in the scenery? > The BIPT > > > antennae (sic!) are usually attached to existing structures, > such as > > > church spires or GSM masts or so? Of course we map those > highly visible > > > carrying structures, but to map the individual antennae seems > to me like > > > overdoing things. > > Looking at the source data, it's going to be one node for one > mast, which typically has several > directional antennas mounted on it. A node per antenna is not > something I'd like to see either. > > Off-topic: when referring to the electrical part, "antennas" is > actually the most common form. By the way, > could you maybe start trying to behave more constructive and > socially acceptable? I believe you can > do it with some effort. > > Kind regards, > Midgard > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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 -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Vander Vennet
<<attachment: pietervdvn.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
