Re: [Tagging] antenna type

On 25/11/18 13:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 05:27, Colin Smale > wrote: So in terms of physical things to map, we have at least locations, masts, cells, sectors, antennas, Ahh, but is it all hanging off a mast, a tower or a pole?

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 05:27, Colin Smale wrote: > So in terms of physical things to map, we have at least locations, masts, > cells, sectors, antennas, > Ahh, but is it all hanging off a mast, a tower or a pole? :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On 2018-11-24 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie wrote: Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4 There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the tag is necessary and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Thank you for reviving this proposal. I believe it’s possible that both are needed. American Indian and Alaskan Native Nations in the USA have a good deal off autonomy and administrative power and certainly should be considered a type of administrative boundary, but outside of the usual numeric

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

@Paul, Agree on the confusion and difficulty in using those blasted protect_class numbers. Let those issues be resolved in the boundary tag. I'm already tagging using protect_class along with the boundary tag and for insurance toss in the boundary:type tag. It's a lot of tagging that could be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie wrote: > > Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or > should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and > instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24? > My gut feeling is that

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

The tag boundary=aboriginal_lands has been discussed on-and-off for a long time in OSM. I'd like to raise the topic one last time and hopefully come to some consensus about it. The tag proposal on the wiki dates from 2008, but the original proposal was from the user Sam Vekemans (username

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

Le dim. 25 nov. 2018 à 00:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I am saying that at present there are mappers using less than precise tags > with man_made=antenna and that needs to have some guidance in order not to > end up with a bigger mess than it already is. > This topic needs a

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_transceiver_station is confusing the BTS and the place itself. A BTS as a device that doesn't include antennas since antennas are connected to it actually. Like any antenna (even the microwave backhaul link antenna), a BTS is a device in the technical site.

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

On 25/11/18 01:50, Sergio Manzi wrote: I like it! To me it makes much more sense to tag telecom=BTS (Base Transceiver Station, see [1 ]) than man_made:antenna + antenna:type=whatever. But BTS is not indicated as possible value for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

On 25/11/18 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 24. Nov 2018, at 16:20, Allan Mustard > wrote: I don't think OSM should be in the business of writing its own dictionary and defining terms independently of the rest of society.  That's a slippery

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

sent from a phone > On 24. Nov 2018, at 16:20, Allan Mustard wrote: > > I don't think OSM should be in the business of writing its own dictionary and > defining terms independently of the rest of society. That's a slippery slope. > it is not exactly the same as a dictionary, but similar,

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

Hi Noémie, I personally wouldn't object to adding "disputed=yes" to borders that are displuted (though I suspect that the question that will soon follow is "what is the nature of the dispute?  Is it about where the border is (e.g. Hans Island) or who owns a particular piece of land one side

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

sent from a phone > On 24. Nov 2018, at 08:08, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > Unlike regular banks, central banks usually only have other banks and their > government as their sole customers and in many countries, central banks act > as a regulatory agency for banks and other financial

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

Right, forgot about that!   :-) On 2018-11-24 20:26, Colin Smale wrote: > And possibly microwave backhaul equipment smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

And just to add to the confusion, there are usually three antennas per BTS, which cover ~120 degree sectors, so the RF power can be adjusted in each sector individually to give the desired amount of overlap with adjacent cells. So in terms of physical things to map, we have at least locations,

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

So... how many tags will this node have, once you have tagged all of its components? From [1 ]: > A *BTS *is usually *composed of*: > > Transceiver (TRX) > Provides transmission and reception of signals. It also does sending and >

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

"BTS" is another object and differ from antennas since the antennas are connected to BTS/nodeB/eNodeB. Both can be mapped with telecom=* and BTS will often get man_made=street_cabinet Recently reviewed Telecom=service_device is suitable for "BTS" cabinets with telecom:medium=radio and aditional

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

W dniu 24.11.2018 o 16:20, Allan Mustard pisze: > > I don't think OSM should be in the business of writing its own > dictionary and defining terms independently of the rest of society.  > That's a slippery slope. > We should not diverge too far from common meaning, but sometimes it needs some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

I don't think OSM should be in the business of writing its own dictionary and defining terms independently of the rest of society.  That's a slippery slope. If a bank is a bank, it's a bank.  If it is part of the banking system and is regulated as a bank, it's a bank. If we want to differentiate

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

Nobody is going to dispute that Central Bank can be considered as a bank (see name). But amenity=bank if for places that perform bank-like services for public - it excludes somebanks and includes some companies that technically are not banks. 24. Nov 2018 15:31 by al...@mustard.net

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

I like it! To me it makes much more sense to tag telecom=BTS (Base Transceiver Station, see [1 ]) than man_made:antenna + antenna:type=whatever. But BTS is not indicated as possible value for telecom=* in the wiki... Cheers, Sergio [1]

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

Here, I just looked up "bank" on 411.com (online directory assistance) for Kansas City, Missouri: https://www.411.com/business/MO/Kansas-city/bank and guess what, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Kansas City branch of America's central bank, is listed...

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

Hi all It would be great to use telecom=* instead of man_made or communications Antennas is a difgicult topic to address in osm since there can be many of them at the same time. They should be distinguished from mast and supports since antennas are only devices All the best François Le sam. 24

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

I’d been thinking about this lately while working on towers and radio telescopes. Towers can be tagged with tower:construction =dish and this is rendered as “satellite” dish sending or receiving waves, in the Openstreetmap-Carto style. Radio telescopes are now rendered as well. But there are

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 1:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was looking at the wiki for antennas > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna > > > I made some additions to the definition and added some photos etc. > > It is still rather sparse. I'd like to be able

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

On 24/11/18 21:29, Sergio Manzi wrote: Hello Warin, I'm afraid we're opening a can of worms here, but you're right: something needs to be fixed, and here below I'm trying to contribute with some considerations... Thanks... rather than 'fixed', guided might be a better term. 'Type' just

Re: [Tagging] antenna type

Hello Warin, I'm afraid we're opening a can of worms here, but you're right: something needs to be fixed, and here below I'm trying to contribute with some considerations... The Wiki [1 ] gives a very good definition of what an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

Most people are non-experts in most things. The map should be made for most people, so that most people can use it. And most people would expect something mapped as a bank to be available for their use. Much like a cafe or a pub. They would not expect it to be only for certain groups of