Re: [Tagging] Grades for obstacle=vegetation

2013-02-07 Thread Serge Wroclawski 
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Konfrare Albert
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some people has suggested me to include a gradient for the key
> obstacle=vegetation.
>
> One suggestion was something like vegetation=light|medium|dense.

I think we don't need so much detail about the obstacle. If it's light
vegetation, then it's not much of an obstacle, but this proposal
doesn't bother me as long as it's optional.


> Another private proposal was:
> obstacle=vegetation_grade1 (vegetation bother when walking)
> obstacle=vegetation_grade2 (the vegetation must be moved with the hands to
> continue on the path)
> obstacle=vegetation_grade3 (vegetation requires me to move my body to get
> through)
> obstacle=vegetation_grade4 (the vegetation must be cut by manual tools to
> get through)
> obstacle=vegetation_grade5 (the vegetation must be cut by mechanical tools
> to get through)
> Or to use obstacle=vegetation (for grades 1,2,3) and obstacle=fallen_tree
> (for grades 4,5)
> I think that in this case, could be better use the key
> vegetation=grade1|grade2|grade3|grade4|grade5

This kind of scheme never gets used other than by "extreme mappers"
(usually just by the person who made the proposal). I say forget it.

> At first, I rejected the proposals because verifiability is not guaranteed,
> but perhaps it is necessary to have a gradient for obstacle=vegetation like
> in tracktype=* (where the verifiability isn't guarenteed).

I don't think we need it, but if we have it, the first proposal sounds ok.

> I pose this question because I'd like to hear your opinions about it.

I like to keep tagging as simple as possible, and vegetation as an
obstacle has a lot of potential to change frequently. Ever seen a corn
maze?

- Serge

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Grades for obstacle=vegetation

2013-02-07 Thread ael 
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 06:47:48PM +0100, Konfrare Albert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Some people has suggested me to include a gradient for the key
> obstacle=vegetation
[..]
> One suggestion was something like
> vegetation=light|medium|dense
> .
> Another private proposal was:
> obstacle=vegetation_grade1 (vegetation bother when walking)
> obstacle=vegetation_grade2 (the vegetation must be moved with the hands to
[..]

> I think that in this case, could be better use the key
> vegetation=grade1|grade2|grade3|grade4|grade5
> 
> At first, I rejected the proposals because verifiability is not guaranteed, 
> but
> perhaps it is necessary to have a gradient for obstacle=vegetation like in
> tracktype=* (where the verifiability isn't guarenteed).

There is at least one omission: vegetation=noxious :-) Seriously, I have
failed to map footpaths in the UK because of stinging nettles. Of
course, there are far worse vegetable hazards...  

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2013/2/7 Jonathan Bennett :
> On 07/02/2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna
>> (mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example:
>
> Yes, but unless you can explain, unambiguously how you identify those
> vs. other types of mask, you're going to hit a verifiability problem.
>
> I'd also say not having the distinction in OSM doesn't lose us much --
> people will still be able to identify that there's a structure there,
> and the general nature of the structure, and hence be able to navigate
> using it as a reference.
>
> So, if you do know the difference, please note it in an extra tag, but
> don't try to force most ordinary mappers to have to distinguish when
> they're unlikely to be able to do so. Does that sound reasonable?


My intention wasn't to force someone to use the man_made=antenna tag
(or any other tag). These tags are already in the database. My point
was that there might be some sense in distinguishing between
man_made=mast and man_made=antenna for roughly similar looking real
world objects. I agree that either of the two (especially together
with a height-tag) will be equally useful for many practical use cases
(like orienteering).

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2013/2/7 Philip Barnes :
> I think that a tower has some means, such as stairs to climb it, so that
> covers things like the eiffel tower, I would also include a fire station
> tower in this, many are steel girder structures, but have stairs.


+1, but also masts might have some kind of ladder or stairs to access
for maintenance. Btw.: what about even different towers e.g. cooling
towers, shall they be comprised in man_made=tower?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Jonathan Bennett 
On 07/02/2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna
> (mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example:

Yes, but unless you can explain, unambiguously how you identify those
vs. other types of mask, you're going to hit a verifiability problem.

I'd also say not having the distinction in OSM doesn't lose us much --
people will still be able to identify that there's a structure there,
and the general nature of the structure, and hence be able to navigate
using it as a reference.

So, if you do know the difference, please note it in an extra tag, but
don't try to force most ordinary mappers to have to distinguish when
they're unlikely to be able to do so. Does that sound reasonable?

J.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Philip Barnes 
I think that a tower has some means, such as stairs to climb it, so that covers 
things like the eiffel tower, I would also include a fire station tower in 
this, many are steel girder structures, but have stairs.

Phil
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 07/02/2013 10:56 ael wrote:

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:47:03PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> In UK English, the word "aerial" is used instead of "antenna".
>
> I have the impression, not well substantiated, that what I would call a
> tower in the US is often called a mast in the UK, particularly if it is
> not particularly tall and not built of steel lattice.


In the UK English, the word tower without context would usually suggest
a stone, often historic, structure.


Likewise, mast would be the usual name for something other than brick/
masonary/wood supporting an aerial/antenna. That regardless of height.


There are obvious exceptions like the Eiffel tower & Blackpool tower.


But I don't think UK native speakers would be too worried by slight
deviations.


ael


___

Tagging mailing list

Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2013/2/7 ael :
> In the UK English, the word tower without context would usually suggest
> a stone, often historic, structure.


but that's why we do put context to man_made=tower (e.g. with
tower:type and tower:construction)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/tower:type
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/tower:construction  (IMHO a "bad
tag" as currently most used values seem to belong to different
classification systems and are in some cases even contradictory, e.g.
"lattice" and "freestanding" are not mutually exclusive, "dish"
doesn't sound like a tower, neither does "dome").

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2013/2/7 Jonathan Bennett :
> On 06/02/2013 20:59, fly wrote:
>> What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna should be 
>> mast,
>> where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver.
>
> To this British English speaker:
>
> Tower == any self-supporting structure, irrespective of material or purpose


ok, (I guess "any" is not meant literally)


> Mast == Usually guyed structure that exists solely to raise something
> else (e.g. antenna, sail) above ground level


ok


> Antenna/aerial == Electrical device used for sending and/or receiving
> radio signals, but not any structure it's attached to.


but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna
(mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008-07-28_Mast_radiator.jpg

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread ael 
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:47:03PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> In UK English, the word "aerial" is used instead of "antenna".
> 
> I have the impression, not well substantiated, that what I would call a
> tower in the US is often called a mast in the UK, particularly if it is
> not particularly tall and not built of steel lattice.

In the UK English, the word tower without context would usually suggest
a stone, often historic, structure.

Likewise, mast would be the usual name for something other than brick/
masonary/wood supporting an aerial/antenna. That regardless of height.

There are obvious exceptions like the Eiffel tower & Blackpool tower.

But I don't think UK native speakers would be too worried by slight
deviations.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Pieren 
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:12 AM, John Sturdy  wrote:

> +1 --- for me (UK English), "tower" implies brickwork or stone.

Not always :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread John Sturdy 
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM,   wrote:

> The local TV and radio here is broadcast from Belmont. The structure is often 
> called Belmont mast, as are other tall broadcast structures. Belmont mast was 
> until 2007 the tallest structure in the UK, so size is not the key. It is 
> guyed. A mast can be a lattice tower, rarely if ever guyed, often now with 
> many microwave dishes on it. Mast would be my first choice to describe it, 
> but I do recognise tower too. It may be a somewhat regional phrase even 
> within the UK.

Yes, as a native UK English speaker, I'd call a guyed metal structure
a mast, and not a tower.

> A tower, to this Brit, can be confused with the stone or brick thing on the 
> end of a church or castle or the building on an airfield where a radio 
> operator or controller works. These would never be a mast

+1 --- for me (UK English), "tower" implies brickwork or stone.

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread Jonathan Bennett 
On 06/02/2013 20:59, fly wrote:
> What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna should be 
> mast,
> where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver.

To this British English speaker:

Tower == any self-supporting structure, irrespective of material or purpose

Mast == Usually guyed structure that exists solely to raise something
else (e.g. antenna, sail) above ground level

Antenna/aerial == Electrical device used for sending and/or receiving
radio signals, but not any structure it's attached to.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

2013-02-07 Thread osm 


Greg Troxel  

>In UK English, the word "aerial" is used instead of "antenna".

IMO aerial is more the thing on a small device or the receiving antenna on a 
house roof.

>
>I have the impression, not well substantiated, that what I would call a
>tower in the US is often called a mast in the UK, particularly if it is
>not particularly tall and not built of steel lattice.
>

The local TV and radio here is broadcast from Belmont. The structure is often 
called Belmont mast, as are other tall broadcast structures. Belmont mast was 
until 2007 the tallest structure in the UK, so size is not the key. It is 
guyed. A mast can be a lattice tower, rarely if ever guyed, often now with many 
microwave dishes on it. Mast would be my first choice to describe it, but I do 
recognise tower too. It may be a somewhat regional phrase even within the UK.

A tower, to this Brit, can be confused with the stone or brick thing on the end 
of a church or castle or the building on an airfield where a radio operator or 
controller works. These would never be a mast, though the airfield tower could 
have a mast somewhere with an aerial connected to the radio transceiver.

Don't you just love English.
Cheers, Chris
osm user chillly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging