Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
I agree that we should focus our mapping efforts primarily on landmark antennae. Although, there could exist other reasons to map one. For example, I map broadcast FM radio or TV masts even if they are only a few meters high, as that helps listeners point their (directional) receiving antennae. Mapping of WISP sector heads may help determine whether a given provider will be available in a given flat. HAMs may also prefer to share their location and channels used this way as a common good for emergencies. Air traffic control frequencies and location may also come in handy for hobby fliers. Technically, there exist various differences between an antenna used for transmission and one only used for reception. The main issue boils down to power handling - the SWR of the whole line must be optimized (tuners are also commonly used), all section must handle both the amperage and the voltage without overheating or sparking, extra caution must be exercised against corrosion, safety measures must be in place for humans and other creatures, special permits must be acquired, etc. You can easily verify whether an antenna transmits and on what frequency by using a drone with an SDR, triangulation from a distance, or sometimes simply using a heat camera. Although the power supplies and lines themselves can also be tell-tale, and you may be able to read or identify certain model numbers from a distance with the right binoculars. Do you think that we should map antennae participating in open community networks? I've seen people map wireless private cellular backbone, and the latter feels much less serving public interest compared to the former. By the way, this looks like a hot topic: mast / tower / communication_tower (again): https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/039556.html Radio telescopes: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040198.html antenna type: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/041044.html antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/041207.html On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:07 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/03/19 20:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg > : >> >> It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering >> this issue, you should also take a look at towers with >> tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish >> >> I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a >> "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used >> occasionally. > > > > I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, but I > would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" we could have > a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these tags are also already > used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, lighthouse, bell_tower, > water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than cramming everything into a big > "pre-category", which isn't useful on its own anymore because of the very > broad scope. > If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could fall > out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go into or atop, > a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't completely unreasonable > either, dishes would also be excluded. > > > A tower of a mast could be used for lighting, or an antenna. Or flags, or a > signal lamp ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals > > The tag mast or tower should not be assumed to indicate the presence of > another feature. > OSM guide - one feature = one OSM entry. > So tag the mast/tower.. then add another entry for the antenna (or other > feature). > > > > ___ > 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] "satellit"
On 07/03/19 20:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>: It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering this issue, you should also take a look at towers with tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used occasionally. I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, but I would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" we could have a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these tags are also already used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, lighthouse, bell_tower, water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than cramming everything into a big "pre-category", which isn't useful on its own anymore because of the very broad scope. If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could fall out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go into or atop, a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't completely unreasonable either, dishes would also be excluded. A tower of a mast could be used for lighting, or an antenna. Or flags, or a signal lamp ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals The tag mast or tower should not be assumed to indicate the presence of another feature. OSM guide - one feature = one OSM entry. So tag the mast/tower.. then add another entry for the antenna (or other feature). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering > this issue, you should also take a look at towers with > tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish > > I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a > "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used > occasionally. I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, but I would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" we could have a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these tags are also already used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, lighthouse, bell_tower, water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than cramming everything into a big "pre-category", which isn't useful on its own anymore because of the very broad scope. If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could fall out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go into or atop, a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't completely unreasonable either, dishes would also be excluded. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering this issue, you should also take a look at towers with tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used occasionally. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:construction%3Ddish ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 06/03/19 18:52, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On 3/6/19 6:00 AM, Warin wrote: So .. what is the best way to map them? My proposal would be a straightforward main tags chain to describe the physical landmark features - and then all the extra sauce specialists might want, but in a way that won't complicate the basics. So... man_made=antenna antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) Err No. A 'dish' is a reflector to the antenna .. the antenna might be a dipole, a horn etc. While it is common to call an antenna a dish, tagging it as 'antenna=dish' means you cannot add 'antenna=dipole'. Rather than antenna=dish it would be better to have dish=yes. However this may complicate adding it to man_made=telescope, telescope:type=radio as dish=yes does not mention antenna? and then radio aficionados may add as much of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use as they want (so we would amend this proposal to make it a complement to the physical landmark features main tags). Yes.. that is the intention of the proposal - it is a sub tag to something else (that is an antenna). It does presently say it is a 'property key' and that should imply that it describes another key? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On Wed, March 6, 2019 2:37 pm, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > I still fail to see _who could benefit_ from that fragmentary, sparse, > information of unknown quality: I surely would not I do not know either - but I'll let those who do have their fun and make sure that it does not interfere with the common usage of navigational cartography, hence my proposal of the straightforward basic attribute chain and the optional radio stuff on top for those who enjoy it. > (/but I'd probably be interested into knowing how high the antenna > stands and approximately how big it is.../). height=*, ele=* etc. - yes, they apply too. At some point we'll also have to draw the line between man_made=antenna and man_made=mast (pretty sure there will be confusion for the typical rural GSM BTS that are currently usually recorded as man_made=mast + tower:type=communication - not very consistent but there are 56k occurrences of that combination), and mention the cases where the man_made=antenna may also be a building=* (that humongous radio-telescope ?) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi : > To put things in perspective, and just as an example, we have about > 186000 amenity=drinking_water, that is an antenna every 26 water taps... > > not really astonishing, because everybody is interested in obtaining drinking water when away from home, for free is even better, but hardly anyone is interested in antennas, especially as you cannot typically use them (private facility). Can you show me a single public antenna, where I can drop by for adhoc use without following a lot of other formalities ;-) ? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-06 08:46, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas >> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). >> >> Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far >> below the "/noise level/" and that all energy "invested" in trying to >> regulate this is... lost energy. >> >> The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough >> conspicuous to represent landmarks >> > We are currently at 7252 for man_made=antenna alone > (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna) and then there are > all the strange things such as (man_made=mast + tower:type=communication) > which may or may not record a mast with antennas. > > But yes, my goal is landmarks such as conspicuous parabolas, not my > neighbour's pet yagi. > oops, yes, you're right, I only checked those antenna that do have an associated antenna=* key (/about 1 in 15/), but anyway we are not talking about huge numbers. To put things in perspective, and just as an example, we have about 186000 amenity=drinking_water, that is an antenna every 26 water taps... If for those 7252 antennas (/out of billions/) someone is willing to tag technical characteristics like operating frequency and polarization, my objection about verifiability and observability still hold, but please, go ahead if you really want. I still fail to see _who could benefit_ from that fragmentary, sparse, information of unknown quality: I surely would not (/but I'd probably be interested into knowing how high the antenna stands and approximately how big it is.../). Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 3/6/19 6:00 AM, Warin wrote: So .. what is the best way to map them? My proposal would be a straightforward main tags chain to describe the physical landmark features - and then all the extra sauce specialists might want, but in a way that won't complicate the basics. So... man_made=antenna antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) and then radio aficionados may add as much of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use as they want (so we would amend this proposal to make it a complement to the physical landmark features main tags). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote: My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "/noise level/" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy. The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks We are currently at 7252 for man_made=antenna alone (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna) and then there are all the strange things such as (man_made=mast + tower:type=communication) which may or may not record a mast with antennas. But yes, my goal is landmarks such as conspicuous parabolas, not my neighbour's pet yagi. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 06/03/19 13:31, Sergio Manzi wrote: On 2019-03-06 03:20, Warin wrote: On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote: Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "/Cui prodest/"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy. Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is a mess. I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable for those that want it. A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some guidance on it. The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'. My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). I am one of those 88. Well at least one who has modified other peoples work on some antennas that have been mapped. An example ... Way: Murchison Widefield Array (607964749) - there will be 2,048 dipole arrays here .. I have chose to map them as an area as that is easiest at least for the moment. I have tagged it as "website"="http://www.mwatelescope.org/; "man_made"="telescope" "telescope:type"="radio" "name"="Murchison Widefield Array" "description"="2048 dual-polarization dipoles when combined forms a single telescope" "antenna:polarisation"="dual" "antenna:configuration"="dipole array" "antenna:propagation"="reception" "frequency"="80 - 300 MHz" There are located near a collection of other radio telescopes ... higher frequency ones .. with steerable dishes. Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "/noise level/" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy. The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks. The ones I am mapping are certainly conspicuous. So .. what is the best way to map them? That is the function of this list, does not matter how many.. just get the tagging as good as we can and then let the mappers use or not use it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-06 03:20, Warin wrote: > On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, >> what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "/Cui >> prodest/"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a >> concrete interest in such information will surely already have their >> accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse >> information of unknown accuracy. > > Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is > a mess. > > I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable > for those that want it. > > A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values > will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some > guidance on it. > The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than > end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'. My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "/noise level/" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy. The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks. Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote: Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "/Cui prodest/"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy. Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is a mess. I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable for those that want it. A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some guidance on it. The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-05 23:48, Warin wrote: > On 05/03/19 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote: >> >>> On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I see it" test. man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. >>> >>> Sympathies! >>> >>> An alternative is available ... >>> >>> man_made=antenna >>> >>> dish=yes >> >> So far, so good. >> >> >>> cross_gain_feed=yes >> >> What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (/for more than 30 years/) >> and I never heard of that term... :-/ >> > > Arr casse grain ... apologies. (added word to spell checker) Ah, OK, a Cassegrain antenna, one with the Illuminator on (/or close to/) the surface of the main concave reflector and a secondary convex reflector. Amazing, but it takes the name from the inventor of this design, Laurant Cassegrain, 1*_6_*29-1*_6_*93!!! :-) > How is the reflecting dish signal connected? There must be a real antenna > that does that. > And then there is the way the antenna gets the reflected signal. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna > > > > There is a lot to learn, we should have more life times ... > >>> two_way=yes >> >> Prove that! >> > As an example: This may be a TV studio where TV programs are transmitted to a > satellite for distribution. > As a TV studio it may also receive TV signals from remote broadcasts... or > other TV studios connected to the satellite. I'm sure you understand that the above argument isn't worth a dime: you only move the issue of "/knowing/" that an antenna is a two ways antenna to the one of "/knowing/" that below the antenna there is a production studio broadcasting stuff and therefore there must be a two_ways antenna somewhere on the roof: one of the probably many antennas up there. > OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information. Really? OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information? Whose knowledge? How verifiable? I don't know if this is really an official policy (/to me it seems to violate the observability and verifiability principles/), but if it really is (/is it?/), I tell you, I'm not interested in that kind of information: in a GIS I only trust observable and verifiable truths, even if you have all the rights to "map your knowledge". >>> satellite=yes >> >> Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons >> to point an antenna at the sky... >> > > Again? If you don't know .. don't tag it. But don't deny others from adding > stuff they do know. > > Don't know that a road is closed in winter? then don't tag it. > Know that a road is closed in winter - tag it. > Come across an open road in summer that is tagged closed in winter ... and > you want to verify the closure? Come back in winter or contact the relevant > mapper. Yes, sorry, again and again. Of course if I don't know something I will not tag it, but I'm more concerned about those who thinks or pretend to know and will tag "something" which is not generally and easily verifiable. If on the antenna on the roof there is a board stating "This is a two_ways antenna" and on the road there is a board stating its winter closure, I fully accept the tagging. If there is no such board I don't trust that information, nor for the antenna, nor for the road and I'll seek more reliable sources of information (/of course the "boards" could be "virtual boards", such as officially published information from the road/building operator/). > The most common antenna people see are TV antennas, most pople know what they > are and can tag them at least the basics. Next would be mobile phone > antennas. After that they are not so well known, most would have to look them > up to find out what they are. Now tell me that you really expect (and hope) to map all TV antennas in the world, on the roof of their respective buildings. You understand we are in all likelihood talking of billions (10^9) objects, do you? And you surely understand that such huge quantity of information will cause inefficiencies (/and costs.../) for the system. I'm also very much unsure that a
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 05/03/19 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote: On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I see it" test. man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. Sympathies! An alternative is available ... man_made=antenna dish=yes So far, so good. cross_gain_feed=yes What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (/for more than 30 years/) and I never heard of that term... :-/ Arr casse grain ... apologies. (added word to spell checker) How is the reflecting dish signal connected? There must be a real antenna that does that. And then there is the way the antenna gets the reflected signal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna There is a lot to learn, we should have more life times ... two_way=yes Prove that! As an example: This may be a TV studio where TV programs are transmitted to a satellite for distribution. As a TV studio it may also receive TV signals from remote broadcasts... or other TV studios connected to the satellite. OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information. satellite=yes Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons to point an antenna at the sky... Again? If you don't know .. don't tag it. But don't deny others from adding stuff they do know. Don't know that a road is closed in winter? then don't tag it. Know that a road is closed in winter - tag it. Come across an open road in summer that is tagged closed in winter ... and you want to verify the closure? Come back in winter or contact the relevant mapper. The most common antenna people see are TV antennas, most pople know what they are and can tag them at least the basics. Next would be mobile phone antennas. After that they are not so well known, most would have to look them up to find out what they are. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote: > On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: >> On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use >> This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I >> see it" test. >> >> man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite >> communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am >> really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or >> monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! >> >> Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, >> antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. >> >> Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on >> offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, >> rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are >> not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. > > Sympathies! > > An alternative is available ... > > man_made=antenna > > dish=yes So far, so good. > cross_gain_feed=yes What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (/for more than 30 years/) and I never heard of that term... :-/ > two_way=yes Prove that! > satellite=yes Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons to point an antenna at the sky... > -- > This does open it up for adding 2 things that are mutually exclusive eg > yagi=yes > monopole=yes > > but in other respects is easier to use. Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-05 10:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use > This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I > see it" test. > > man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite > communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am > really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or > monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! > > Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, > antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. > > Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on > offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, > rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are > not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. +1! As far as I'm concerned, lack of observability and/or lack of verifiability are a no-go for inclusion in OSM! Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I see it" test. man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. Sympathies! An alternative is available ... man_made=antenna dish=yes cross_gain_feed=yes two_way=yes satellite=yes -- This does open it up for adding 2 things that are mutually exclusive eg yagi=yes monopole=yes but in other respects is easier to use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I see it" test. man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" ! Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application, antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory. Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features, rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 04/03/19 21:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I would expect the "uplink" information to be relevant, as most satellite antennas are used for receiving only (those private tv reception antennas). Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll see people will likely tag it ;-) Subtagging (or a property) seems better for the "uplink" information, because it doesn't require people to know the details in order to map something, I agree. +1 to having uplink/downlink' as a sub tag. Actually I think Tx/Rx (transmit/receive/transceiver) are better as that can be used on terrestrial antennas and has more detail. And yes these would need some knowledge to tag correctly for some installations. These can be seen as a property of the antenna, But I would not use the words 'type', 'property', The disk is technically not the antenna, it is a reflector. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use for a proposed collection of tags * antenna:application = mobile_phone/broadcast_radio/broadcast_television/citizens_band/amateur_radio/radar/* to state the application of an antenna’s signal is put. * antenna:propagation =reception/transmission/two_way to denote the direction of the signal. * antenna:configuration = monopole/dipole/yagi/log_periodic/horn/curtain/helical/phased_array/loop/* To state the antenna configuration. * antenna:polarisation = vertical/horizontal/dual/circular/* to denote the signal polarisation. * antenna:reflector = dish/wire_element/wire_screen/* To state the antennas reflector – if it has one. * antenna:cover = radome/* To state the antennas protective cover – if it has one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
On 2019-03-04 11:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll > see people will likely tag it ;-) Personally I counter this for lack of observability/verifiability. From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability "At the core, "verifiability" is that everything you do can be demonstrated to be true or false - the latter hopefully implying that there has been a change on the ground that needs mapping. We apply this not only to the mapping data itself, but also to the way in which we record it - the tags and values we use to describe the attributes of objects on the map. From a given scenario, a tag/value combination is verifiable *if and only if* independent users when observing the same feature would make the same observation every time. For a user's tagging to be verifiable, it is desirable to have objective criteria for tagging. This principle applies to any observable characteristic which is a matter of fact, be it numerical or descriptive - a concrete road surface, a red brick building, etc. " Isn't the above an OSM tenet any more? Sergio P.S.: yeah, I know it is a "lost cause", but anyway... smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "satellit"
I would expect the "uplink" information to be relevant, as most satellite antennas are used for receiving only (those private tv reception antennas). Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll see people will likely tag it ;-) Subtagging (or a property) seems better for the "uplink" information, because it doesn't require people to know the details in order to map something, I agree. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "satellit"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values mentions "parabolic_satellit" "parabolic_satellit_uplink" and "parabolic_satellite_uplink". I have two remarks about that... First, evidently, "satellit" is wrong and should be "satellite"... Or have I missed something ? Unless someone explains that "satellit" is a distinct legit concept, I'll replace it globally with "satellite". Second, do we want to specify "_uplink" where appropriate ? Most parabola large enough to tag in Openstreetmap are going to feature an uplink. But most important, the physical features of downlink and uplink/downlink antennas are identical - the same antenna might even have more than one feeder to switch its purpose. So, should we have only "parabolic_satellite" or both "parabolic_satellite" and "parabolic_satellite_uplink" ? Or should we leave the antenna's purpose to a subtag (something like antenna:purpose=downlink;uplink;uplink/downlink;tracking;etc.) ? I admit I like the subtag option because it shifts the problem to somewhere it won't complicate the mapping of physical features... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
