Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[John Willis]

Last Saturday, I took some pictures of the towers/pylons near my home. I 
uploaded 11 images to a flickr album here. 

You can easily get an idea of what I am talking about (separated or “abandoned” 
landuses), and the massive scale of some of the tower/pylons.
there are refs and descriptions for all the large towers/pylons. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/albums/72157682725471832 


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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[John Willis]

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 1:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> the landuse, if they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland 
> or in the case of this photo natural=wood.

Yes, I agree there instances where the pylons sit on a landuse, and it doesn’t 
substantially change the surrounding area - natural or man-made. Perhaps that 
is the most common occurrence of the towers. 

Sometimes it is changed to a different natural landuse (scrub,meadow,etc) 
because people cut corridors through the forest for the wires. This is common 
around pylons/towers in my region because the towers sit on ridges, and the 
area immediately surrounding some towers is kept clear of trees, leading to 
natural=scrub. 

Other times, the land is in man-made landuse (farmland) and “abandoned” by the 
owner left to be used only by the pylon/tower. The land was purchased by the 
utility, and is often raised or compacted, so the farmer doesn’t use it. This 
is very common in my region, though I understand that in other countries it is 
very common to continue farming in the land. 

Other times, the towers have barrier separated landuse, with possibly a 
different landcover - think a large tower near residences, or a comm tower in 
the wilderness near a mountaintop. Some pylons/towers I deal with are on 
separate landuses, while others nearby are merely “abandoned” by a farmer, due 
to the tower’s proximity to a large road. 

The “abandoned” and “separated” land used by the pylon/tower IMHO is worth 
mapping as a desperate landuse. 

Almost all comm towers here have a dedicated, fenced landuse, cabinet/shed for 
a backup generator, and a pole or tower for cellphone antennas. Similarly, I 
would say this is also a mappable landuse. 

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-07-04 14:49, Mark Bradley wrote:
In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but 
according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would 
defer to the word "pylon."

In British English, yes the general public usually call them 'pylons'.
But this is not used by professionals or engineers etc. The electricity 
companies nearly always refer to them as 'towers' (or more specifically 
'transmission towers').

So I think 'tower' is the correct term in British English anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:49:07 -0400
"Mark Bradley"  wrote:

> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> > From: Philip Barnes 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >  wrote:  
> > >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> > >  
> > >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,  
> > >communication  
> > >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> > >>
> > >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because
> > >> not  
> > >only  
> > >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> > >> presets to  
> > >be  
> > >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> > >>
> > >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> > >>  
> > >
> > >
> > >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this
> > >same landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities,
> > >logistical infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> > >
> > >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > >should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> > >
> > >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of
> > >typical top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile,
> > >semiconductors, electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> > >  
> > The correct English term is pylon.
> > 
> > Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the
> > presence of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if
> > they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in
> > the case of this photo natural=wood.
> > 
> > https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
> > 
> > Phil (trigpoint)  
> 
> 
> 
> In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but
> according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would
> defer to the word "pylon."
> 
> I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon
> should have its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in
> terms of such a small area when they hear the term "landuse."  I
> think that giving a pylon area a separate landuse is overkill and
> misleading.

Just wondering: how would you tag something like this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9591891,-118.9945941,334m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

It's a paved and fenced area measuring about 30 meters by 250 meters,
containing two heavily-braced pylons where a major powerline goes over
the crest of a hill.

Or this one, four tightly-spaced pylons carrying lines from Bonneville
Dam to the substation across the river:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6430068,-121.9514778,174m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

Some of these "small areas" are fairly substantial.  Yes, *most* pylons
don't need a separate landuse mapping, but some do.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

2017-07-04 18:15 GMT+02:00 marc marc :

> Le 04. 07. 17 à 17:14, François Lacombe a écrit :
> > I still have some comments :
> > * fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without
> > the :type suffix
> > * fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the
> > benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints)
> With fire_hydrant:couplings, you have to guess what this means.

Without reading the wiki, somebody can tag fire_hydrant:couplings=yes or
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2 for exemple.
> Sata will be of lower quality
>

Hi Marc, I got your point
I'd say it's a matter of tags, presets, QA, guidance, not only of this
particular proposal
Even if contributors will know it's about the type of coupling, they will
defintely have to look at wiki to know which value is recommended. Define
precise presets in editors is a good start.

Such problems don't appear with substation=*, pipeline=*, waterway=*...


> if you want to avoid a generic subname :type, I think that should be
> fire_hydrant:couplings_type
> the same with for fire_hydrant:couplings_size
>

Why not for fire_hydrant:coupling_type
The main goal is to avoid supplementary namespaces

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Jul 2017, at 13:14, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence 
> of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross 
> farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo 
> natural=wood. 
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS



I agree that from my personal experience I'd also not expect a different 
landuse for the area below a power tower, but John gave the example of huge 
towers which were rising out of a fenced area, and this changes the situation 
(not generally, but for these), IMHO.

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[marc marc]

Le 04. 07. 17 à 17:14, François Lacombe a écrit :
> I still have some comments :
> * fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without 
> the :type suffix
> * fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the 
> benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints)
With fire_hydrant:couplings, you have to guess what this means.
Without reading the wiki, somebody can tag fire_hydrant:couplings=yes or 
fire_hydrant:couplings=2 for exemple.
Sata will be of lower quality
if you want to avoid a generic subname :type, I think that should be
fire_hydrant:couplings_type
the same with for fire_hydrant:couplings_size

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[François Lacombe]

Hi Viking,

Thank you for proposal updating

I still have some comments :
* fire_hydrant:couplings:type may only be fire_hydrant:couplings without
the :type suffix
* fire_hydrant:type really should be fire_hydrant only. I don't get the
benefit of adding :type here (feel free to give me hints)
* Can I or would you add an example subsection with pictures giving at
least the different situations depicted with fire_hydrant:type key ?

The last point will make the proposal easier to understand and then to vote


All the best

Francois



*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-06-27 23:37 GMT+02:00 Viking :

> I've updated the page [1], according to François' suggestions. Please
> check it.
> Alberto
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Fire_Hydrant_Extensions
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[François Lacombe]

2017-07-04 15:39 GMT+02:00 Mark Bradley :

>
> I nominate Martin, John Willis, and a few others on this list to form a
> committee and formulate an organized tagging structure for OSM.  You guys
> are intelligent and thoughtful and I would trust you to come up with a good
> solution.  I'm tired of the endless debating back and forth on this list
> that seldom goes anywhere.
>
> I know this won't happen, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts.
>

Hi Mark,

This doesn't sound so simple (unfortunately)

There was a proposal regarding power supports (where power=tower was quoted)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_supports_refinement

But currently rejected due to important usage of certain "to be changed"
keys/values.
According to that, I'm not sure people would agree to move from tower to
pylon.

Regarding the main topic of this thread, if perimeter at the base of any
power support (it can be pylons, tower, poles, portal, whatever) is
dedicated in any means (often fenced) to power business, I would agree to
use landuse.
If not, crossing landuse may remain.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Bradley]

> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> From: Philip Barnes 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
> 
> 
> 
> On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >only
> >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
> >be
> >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> >landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> >infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
> >be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> >top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> >electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> The correct English term is pylon.
> 
> Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence 
> of pylons
> does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the land
> beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)



In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but according 
to the convention of OSM using British English, I would defer to the word 
"pylon."

I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon should have 
its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in terms of such a small area 
when they hear the term "landuse."  I think that giving a pylon area a separate 
landuse is overkill and misleading.

Mark





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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Bradley]

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:30:31 +0800
> From: Jherome Miguel 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
>
> 
> Though I came lately here, I agree. Indicating the type of industrial area 
> will help
> indicate the industry where the piece of land is used.
> 
> --TagaSanPedroAko
> 
> On Jul 4, 2017 6:08 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > 2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >> communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >> only can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> >> presets to be easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> > landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> > infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> > For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> > Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> > top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> > electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin



I nominate Martin, John Willis, and a few others on this list to form a 
committee and formulate an organized tagging structure for OSM.  You guys are 
intelligent and thoughtful and I would trust you to come up with a good 
solution.  I'm tired of the endless debating back and forth on this list that 
seldom goes anywhere.

I know this won't happen, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts.

Mark




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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Philip Barnes]

On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
>
>> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
>communication
>> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>>
>> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
>only
>> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
>be
>> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>>
>> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>>
>
>
>I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
>desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
>landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
>infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
>
>For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
>be
>also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
>
>Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
>top
>level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
>electronics,
>energy, machinery, mining, ...)
>
The correct English term is pylon. 

Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence of 
pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the 
land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood. 

https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS

Phil (trigpoint) 



-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Jherome Miguel]

Though I came lately here, I agree. Indicating the type of industrial area
will help indicate the industry where the piece of land is used.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Jul 4, 2017 6:08 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:

>
> 2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
>
>> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers, communication
>> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>>
>> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not only
>> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to be
>> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>>
>> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>>
>
>
> I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
>
> For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should be
> also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
>
> Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical top
> level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors, electronics,
> energy, machinery, mining, ...)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers, communication
> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>
> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not only
> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to be
> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>
> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>


I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).

For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should be
also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).

Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical top
level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors, electronics,
energy, machinery, mining, ...)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Services provided by a travel agency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-07-04 2:38 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> This particular question (how to add cycle rental to a tourist information
> office) is a symptom of a larger tagging issue in OSM - you can’t add
> multiple amenities/services that are not mappable features to most mappable
> places.



because an amenity=* is usually read as feature that is characterized / of
category *

For services offered, you need a property-like tagging scheme.

For rental this was already discussed in the past. There's also
documentation:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service:bicycle:rental

No idea why there's a "service" prefixed, but that's the way the tag is
documented and used.



> we can map the services as stand-alonse shops,



actually with amenity=* we don't map a service, we map a feature. Provided
"services" should be mapped as properties.


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging