Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 02:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > US law does not apply everywhere. Yes, it doesn't. Besides the USA don't recognise database right; apparently it's mainly used in the EU. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 14:23, François Lacombe wrote: > > structure={lattice,guyed, tube...} would be better than tower:construction. > 15k uses vs 150k. > Lattice is the structure and have nothing to do with actual construction. > This tag should be avoided. Seems sensible. > telecom=antenna

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi Lionel Thanks for this helpful clarification! I'd suggest to use them on OSM. Regards Markus On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Lionel Giard wrote: > > At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile > structure construction : > - Self-supported pylons (the "tower",

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2018, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > OK, but can you translate all of that into a very simple one-line description > that a non-engineer layman, looking at an aerial photo, can say Yep, I'll > call this one a man_made=mast, but this one over here is a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2018, at 02:27, Greg Troxel wrote: > >A) towers that are more than for antennas, like Tokyo, Killesberg, >Eiffel, and other similar things that aren't really buildings but >which have a significant purpose beyond holding an antenna up high I would

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Maybe we should inspire us from the power=* scheme and using a telecom tagging like (i'm looking to the idea of "power=pole" compared to power=tower) : - Keeping the tagging as a man_made=tower (or other suitable tag) for big tower (like Eiffel tower) that have other purpose, and only tag the

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 10:28, Greg Troxel wrote: > > So where I think we are is: > > there is almost zero support for the notion that guy wires or not is > critical and therefore these must not be part of definitions. (Maybe > just Graeme.) > Sorry if I sound pedantic about it - I'm not

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 20:05 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > >> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts > and not protectable by copyright > > If i'm

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support >> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly >> contentious and/or confusing. > > what

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

SelfishSeahorse writes: >> For an example of something used in communications (an American thing, >> but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things >> with the same characteristics): >> >> http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower >> >> which says right there can be up to

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not protectable by copyright If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a compilation of numbers

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:58, Greg Troxel wrote: > > This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality. guys are > needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that > are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter. I agree. > > A tower is a tall, slim

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not > protectable by copyright If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:57:38 -0400 From: Greg Troxel To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM Tag Subject: Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again) Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external access only This reliance

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi Lionel, Thank you for this clarification I agree on classification, let's talk about tagging Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 11:30, Lionel Giard a écrit : > > And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice > pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile structure construction : - *Self-supported pylons* (the "*tower*", mostly looking like the power=tower in OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in concrete) ; - *Guy-wired pylons* (the "*mast*" as described

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Untrue. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data A significant part of Wikidata data was harvested from Wikipedia, in which for example most coordinates are produced using/copied from products with licenses

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel wrote: > > for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support > antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly > contentious and/or confusing. what about this:

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 08:20, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > I would distinguish broadcasting from two way communication, but won’t > insist > This have to be done with telecom=*, not man_made or building Also, tower:type is not a good idea as :type doesn't provide additional information

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:03, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Something doesn't become "licence washed" by being copied from a differently > licensed source to a CC0-claimed one. The actual text of the claim at the > bottom of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page is

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone On 26. Oct 2018, at 00:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio >> AND tv?), > > > Which would both count as communication I would distinguish broadcasting from two way communication, but won’t insist

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: > A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external > access only This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality. guys are needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that are exactly like guyed masts

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On 25/10/2018 23:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all numerical values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, are also in Wikidata. Something doesn't become "licence washed" by being copied from a differently licensed

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all numerical values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, are also in Wikidata. On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:05 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> Looking

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 20:39, Paul Allen wrote: > > Where, in your (or anybody else's) scheme of things does the BT Tower fit? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Tower > > Its primary purpose was for microwave communications and replaced an > earlier steel lattice > mast (wikipedia calls it a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Looking closely, many/most towers might be seen as "multi purpose" (radio > AND tv?), > Which would both count as communication Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:13, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > Just note that Wikipedia (and other websites) isn't a legal source for > OSM because of its incompatible license: > Sorry, wasn't aware of that as I've seen lot's of references to thins being listed on Wiki? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 18:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as > look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for > these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but > I may be

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as >> look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for >>

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > +1. If there is an accessible observation deck, I would see them as > look-out towers, not sure if "observation tower" is the right term for > these, might be confused with things like wildlife observation towers, but > I may be

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 11:08 Uhr schrieb SelfishSeahorse < selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > > As i've written in my previous message, guy-wires are used to > stabilise tall masts. Therefore the absence of guy-wires doesn't imply > that it's a tower. > +1 > I'd leave the current definition as

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 07:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > A lot of the big ones will be listed somewhere on the internet - the really > big ones have their heights listed on that wiki page I mentioned earlier Just note that Wikipedia (and other websites) isn't a legal source for OSM because

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Do., 25. Okt. 2018 um 01:41 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > 1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation > tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have > elevators and public observation decks, right? > +1. If

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 09:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > 1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation > tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have > elevators and public observation decks, right? > Multipurpose certainly isn't ideal, but was

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

1. Multipurpose tower still seems a little ambiguous to me. Observation tower is closer for most of them, because they are big enough to have elevators and public observation decks, right? Since there are already tags for tower:type=observation and tower:type=communications, perhaps there is no

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 08:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > 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). > Thanks Joseph - I obviously misread it (or don't remember the exact

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 04:03, SelfishSeahorse 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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 16:07, Greg Troxel wrote: > > The guy wires or not is made into the main thing here, but it's really a > detail. Obviously, from a certain height, tall cylindrical structures like masts need guy-wires for stabilisation. Otherwise, they need a larger diameter or a conical

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 03:58, SelfishSeahorse > wrote: > >> There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in >> English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions >> would make sense nevertheless. Part of the issue is UK English vs US

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 14:28 Uhr schrieb Jonathon Rossi : > > My first thought was some sort of "landmark=yes" tag, there is already a > "denotation=landmark" tag for trees, however it appears like there might > have been a landmark tag in the past that was deprecated, and I realise > that it

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Lionel Giard wrote: > The problem i see with that "multipurpose" value is that it give no > information and could be misused for other tower:type (like > defensive;observation) which should not be rendered as communication_tower. > Thus i would propose to render

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

The problem i see with that "multipurpose" value is that it give no information and could be misused for other tower:type (like defensive;observation) which should not be rendered as communication_tower. Thus i would propose to render the "communication_tower" based on the height > 250 m

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > " If you combine communications;observation, which would it render as?" > > It won't render at all, unless an individual renderer adds support for > this specific combination > Thanks Joseph So, if we use the existing rendered

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

" If you combine communications;observation, which would it render as?" It won't render at all, unless an individual renderer adds support for this specific combination On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 08:51, marc marc wrote: > >> I agree in

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 08:51, marc marc wrote: > I agree in principle, but I have a few questions. > > Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure > > with internal access > > if it matches the look, isn't that what would

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 00:51, marc marc a écrit : > Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure > > with internal access > > if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be > described by the undocumented

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

I agree in principle, but I have a few questions. Le 09. 10. 18 à 00:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > man_made=tower: a tall, slim, freestanding vertical structure > with internal access if it matches the look, isn't that what would already be described by the undocumented building=tower ?

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 03:58, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in > English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions > would make sense nevertheless. > So, how about we clean up the various mixtures of definitions, &

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > That is, we have two contradictory definitions on the wiki: the > engineering definition according to which a tower is freestanding and > mast guyed, and the other definition according to which 'a tower is > accessible and provides

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am So., 7. Okt. 2018 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>: > > Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer > a écrit : > >> It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a >> watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a > watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc. > but they are all watch towers. With this logic, all objects in OSM would be mapped

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 15:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually > communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a > dozen or 2? > Some more searching & this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers says

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 6. Oct 2018, at 00:42, marc marc wrote: > > I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day someone will add his function. It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc. but

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Le 06. 10. 18 à 00:26, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > Why not tag man_made=observation_tower / bell_tower / etc. do you have to be an expert in towers+telecomunication+a+b+c to put the right tag? or is it so disturbing to do it by successive refinement ? I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 5. Oct 2018, at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower + > tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than typing > in a single tag. for me it made more sense to discourage the whole

[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Friday, October 5, 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually > communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a > dozen or 2? > There are already more than a dozen in the small country of Switzerland. > I'd like to

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On 05/10/18 17:31, Lionel Giard wrote: I also support this simplification of definition and tags. Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a landmark with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of them are not publicly known around here) ? Because some are

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

I also support this simplification of definition and tags. Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a landmark with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of them are not publicly known around here) ? Because some are really useful for navigation (visible from

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower + > tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than > typing in a single tag. > Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile phone

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower + tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than typing in a single tag. Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially deprecated? On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under > different keys wasn't a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce > confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what > people want to

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Then you get other "fuzzy" ones :-), such as this one that I found yesterday: >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 1. Oct 2018, at 23:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports various > mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be? it’s a nice edge case to test the current system, I would probably keep the water

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:23, Paul Allen wrote: > Given that it has a lattice structure, it is (according to the wiki > definition) a water mast. :) > While by a different definition :-), it's a tower because it doesn't have any guy wires! Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I was in this area last week & went in yesterday to check & if necessary > update some map features. I found that this tower is currently mapped as a > water_tower >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that > state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction. > man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example). > Certainly, choosing

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi, Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 17:19, José G Moya Y. a écrit : > Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs > inside, and even windows. > > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien > ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq > It's definitely a tower. In French it's called a "Tour"

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs inside, and even windows. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq WP says it is over 100m tall, too. I don't have a telecomm background, but I think the "seems to be a building, is hollow

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same > width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more > supports. > I would not negate that a mast can be tapered. >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more supports. I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2) and it

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 1. Oct 2018, at 06:07, Mark Wagner wrote: > > I suspect it comes from observing European-style radio towers (for > example, Fernsehturm Berlin[1]). For the record: the mother of all these towers with a shaft in reinforced concrete is actually in Stuttgart:

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

> only one in the Western Hemisphere, > I presume you're thinking of Toronto's CN Tower, but the Space Needle in Seattle though listed as an Observation Tower has a transmitter spike on top, so serves the same dual purposes as Fernsehturms in Germany, as TV transmitter and tourist trap. There

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:19:58 +0200 SelfishSeahorse wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical > > > definition. > > > > > > it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it? > >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2018, at 20:19, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > a tower is accessible and provides > platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it' [1] > and asked him where this definition comes from and what 'accessible' > exactly means (a ladder also provides

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical > > definition. > > > it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it? It would already be helpful if there actually were a common definition to distinguish

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2018, at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical > definition. it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Looking at the definition on the wikiproject telecom https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Telecoms (in the part "Antennas / Masts / Towers", there is a section to indicate how to tag the mast, tower ...: >From my understandings, the three (four) cases are currently : - a vertical

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two > > > definitions. > > > > they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not > >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions. > > they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not only > for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it would be a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2018, at 14:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions. they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not only for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 03:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast says that > > "In structural engineering, mast is a vertical structure, supported by > external guys and anchors. > > This is the only existing definite feature that could be used

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 00:54, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Michael Booth wrote: > > I fail to understand the difference between a > man_made=communications_tower and man_made=tower + > tower:type=communication. Aren't all towers far visible landmarks? > When is a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Michael Booth wrote: > > The Wiki definition is: "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications > It is often made from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower > > Looking

[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi, I opened an issue on the rendering of man_made=communications_tower on the standard layer over on OSM-carto: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3414 and think there should be a discussion about the tagging as well. The Wiki definition is: *"**a huge tower for