Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
On 12/3/20 1:16 am, Greg Troxel wrote: "ITineris OSM" writes: I need help in tagging a special kind of survey points: geodesic towers. Are they called "geodetic" towers? These are tubular concrete structures, with usual steel triangulation tripods on their top. Wow, those are pretty big! They have the precise benchmark on the ground level, the tower is erected so that its visible from far, being higher than the trees around. They form the base of the national reference grid. I'm not sure if you mean "benchmark" as vertical control, or if you mean the horizontal control mark and then the tower is basically over it, to translate it up along the plumb line. So the control point is man_made=survey_point. Then there is a tower which is physcially notable regardless, and the tourist bit. OSM's representation does not really admit multiple primary tags on objects, except that sometimes they dno't conflict. I'd put in man_made=survey_point as a node for the thing on the ground, some survey_point:geodetic_tower=yes subtag on that (to inform those who care about the survey aspect of that), maybe some kind of height tag, and then draw a way around the tower and tag that as man_mde=tower and/or tourism. I don't think we should try to drag towerness and being an attraction into the survey_point namespace; it seems easy enough to dneote multiple properties separately. [> + 1 for using a node to signify the survey point, I would wait on a sub tag to see what happens with the present discussions. For the tower I'm map that as an area with whatever tags you think appropriate, I'd not put any man_made=survey_point on it though. They could be tagging as man_made=survey_point because their main purpose is being a geodesic reference point. However, they could be a man_made=tower, for being a tower emerging from the surface - and to distinguish it from brackets, benchmarks or pavement rivets. Furthermore, additional functions can be connected to the latter only: Some of them are tourist attractions, like this https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs%C3%B3v%C3%A1nyos#/media/F%C3%A1jl:Csovanyos2014_12.jpg. It is a tower:type=observation. If its rigged with GSM and microwave antennae, its tower:type=communication. (And of course you may add the triangulation_point=yes tagging.) So how would you tag them? Greets, kos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging w ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
"ITineris OSM" writes: > I need help in tagging a special kind of survey points: geodesic towers. Are they called "geodetic" towers? > These are tubular concrete structures, with usual steel triangulation tripods > on their top. Wow, those are pretty big! > They have the precise benchmark on the ground level, the tower is erected so > that its visible from far, being higher than the trees around. > They form the base of the national reference grid. I'm not sure if you mean "benchmark" as vertical control, or if you mean the horizontal control mark and then the tower is basically over it, to translate it up along the plumb line. So the control point is man_made=survey_point. Then there is a tower which is physcially notable regardless, and the tourist bit. OSM's representation does not really admit multiple primary tags on objects, except that sometimes they dno't conflict. I'd put in man_made=survey_point as a node for the thing on the ground, some survey_point:geodetic_tower=yes subtag on that (to inform those who care about the survey aspect of that), maybe some kind of height tag, and then draw a way around the tower and tag that as man_mde=tower and/or tourism. I don't think we should try to drag towerness and being an attraction into the survey_point namespace; it seems easy enough to dneote multiple properties separately. [> > > > They could be tagging as style="font-family:Courier > New,Courier,monospace;">man_made=survey_point because their > main purpose is being a geodesic reference point. > > However, they could be a style="font-family:Courier > New,Courier,monospace;">man_made=tower, for being a tower > emerging from the surface - and to distinguish it from brackets, benchmarks > or pavement rivets. > > Furthermore, additional functions can be connected to the latter only: > > Some of them are tourist attractions, like this > https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cs%C3%B3v%C3%A1nyos#/media/F%C3%A1jl:Csovanyos2014_12.jpg. > It is a tower:type=observation. > > If its rigged with GSM and microwave antennae, its style="color:#ff;">tower:type=communication. > > > > > (And of course you may add the style="font-family: Courier New , Courier , > monospace;">triangulation_point=yes tagging.) > > > > So how would you tag them? > > > > Greets, > kos > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging w ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Kevin Kenny wrote: [A whole load of stuff about surveying] Thanks for your comprehensive contribution to this topic. Not that I expected anything less than a comprehensive contribution when I saw your name. I was particularly impressed that you knew what a pheon is. The symbol is also called (especially by the MoD) the government property mark (see Defence Standard 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel).. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 8:42 AM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like > to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark > The reason being that I would like to also propose > survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it. > > Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its > typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with > arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal > bolts in walls or bolts in the ground. > > Thank you for your time, A 'control station' is any fixed mark used by surveyors to establish a frame of reference. They're often placed specifically for the purpose (often called 'monuments' in that case), but visible and stable marks such as church steeples and fire towers have been used as stations. In common speech, it's typical to call all the monuments 'benchmarks', but to be technically correct, a 'benchmark' is limited to a 'vertical control', a fixed point at a known elevation. The horizontal position of a benchmark may or may not be established to survey accuracy. 'Ordnance survey' is UK-specific, as is marking benchmarks with the Broad Arrow (a heraldic pheon, historically used to label Crown property). The US, for instance, has no Ordnance Survey. We have the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, the US Geologic Survey, many state surveys (New York's is under the Department of Environmental Conservation in the Adirondacks, the Department of Transportation elsewhere), and many oddball ones (https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/73161-1934-us-supreme-court-border-survey-mark/ - even the Supreme Court has ordered surveys). In the US, many benchmarks have been placed by private surveys as well, because large private operators also need coordinate frames. The best known are perhaps http://www.wintertime.com/OH/GC/Disney/disneymarks.html There's a fairly comprehensive discussion about the types of markers used by the US government at https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/web/about_ngs/history/Survey_Mark_Art.pdf Right now the `survey_point=*` key is a mess. In fact, I'd write it off as a total loss. It conflates several ideas: Purpose: Vertical control, horizontal control (or both). There are also 'reference marks' - additional monuments placed to establish the location of a primary mark lest the primary be lost or destroyed; 'azimuth marks' - used to establish a sighting direction from the primary mark immune to geomagnetic variation, and stations that were used in surveys to map the geomagnetic field, the gravitational potential, the tidal variation, and so on. In addition, some control stations had 'witness marks' that were placed only to alert people to the presence of the station. https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29681317420 is one form these could take. The trig point that it warns of is https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29348215163. Form: I understand that the commonest form of a UK survey mark is a stone tablet (or lettering and symbols of the same form chiseled in native stone. While the US has used stone tablets, disc-shaped bronze tablets are the commonest form here. Other forms frequently observed are rods, pipes, bolts, drill holes, and clay cones. In diggable soil, a second mark was often installed underground, and was actually the primary reference. The surface mark would be plumbed above it and offset by a known vertical distance. Some of these formerly-underground markers have since been exposed by damage. In addition to form, material might be interesting: is a tablet of stone, bronze, concrete, fired clay, ...? Many tablets and rods were affixed to drill holes by pouring hot lead, Babbitt metal, sulphur or bitumen in the hole, and sometimes the hole and fill material are all that remain (and the centre of the hole is still a usable horizontal control). You also seem to consider shape important - disc-shaped, rectangular, or hexagonal tablets may have particular meaning to you? Accuracy: Many surveys placed markers to different orders of accuracy. Standards varied by agency and time. Operator: Who placed the mark? Who now controls it? (There are no doubt other attributes.) Since all four of these can vary independently, it seems unwise to group them all under 'type' A more-complete description might be: 'BLACK (OD1740) horizontal trigonometric control station, marked by a copper nail and washer stamped "N.Y. / V.C.", position established to first-order accuracy and thought to be of better than normal stability, placed by the Adirondack Survey (Verplanck Colvin, state surveyor), now controlled jointly by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.' or 'ALANDER (MZ2083) geomagnetic station, marked by a disc-shaped bronze tablet, placed by US Coast and
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
Hi, I need help in tagging a special kind of survey points: geodesic towers. A new tag may help some. These are tubular concrete structures, with usual steel triangulation tripods on their top. They have the precise benchmark on the ground level, the tower is erected so that it's visible from far, being higher than the trees around. They form the base of the national reference grid. http://ballon.hu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017-12-23-12.39.37.jpg http://karpat-medence.hu/keptar/galleries/Magyarorszag/Fejer/Perkata/Geotorony/perkata-geotorony_02.jpg They could be tagging as man_made=survey_point because their main purpose is being a geodesic reference point. However, they could be a man_made=tower, for being a tower emerging from the surface - and to distinguish it from brackets, benchmarks or pavement rivets. Furthermore, additional functions can be connected to the latter only: Some of them are tourist attractions, like this viewpoint. It is a tower:type=observation. If it's rigged with GSM and microwave antennae, it's tower:type=communication. (And of course you may add the triangulation_point=yes tagging.) So how would you tag them? Greets, Ákos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
On 8/3/20 11:38 pm, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Hi, I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark The reason being that I would like to also propose survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it. Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal bolts in walls or bolts in the ground. While they maybe 'ordnance survey points' where you are, it the rest of the world it would be more incisive to drop "ordnance" leaving 'survey points'. Err "usually chiselled in stone with its typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with arrow below on horizontal surfaces." I think that may be the usually case there.. what about elsewhere? Try to use the local things as examples rather than a strict definition? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(surveying) It looks like the fundamental thing about them is the precise height of the point. I think that is the thing that needs to be stated in the definition? Thank you, it will be nice to have some organization on survey_point=* ! Note: I assume that the purpose of the survey point is what is trying to be tagged. Others may have used survey_point=* for the physical structure or something else. Perhaps a more specific key to get away from the mess? survey_point:function=benchmark/trig_point/* or survey_point:structure=hexagonal_bolt/marked_stone/* ??? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
Anne-Karoline Distel writes: > I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like I'm glad to hear that. > to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark > The reason being that I would like to also propose > survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it. I think this is blurring two separate concepts: a particular logical purpose of passive survey control mark, and the form of such a mark. In the US, we use "benchmark" to refer to a passive mark for elevation, essentially always by leveling. We use "triangulation station" for passive marks for horizontal controls, and I'm not sure but perhaps ellipsoidal station for those which use GNSS to establish 3d coordinates relative to the ellipsoid of a datum. For all of these, the big point is that there's some reference that can be recovered, and the exact physical form is not that important. While the above words are guided by my understanding of US practice, the historical separation of horizontal and vertical control networks and the move to GNSS and ellipsoidal positions is I think pretty universal. So I would suggest that there be tags for type/purpose, keeping in mind that some physical marks were both horizontal and vertical controls. It makes senes to have further tags for the physical type of mark. > > Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its > typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with > arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal > bolts in walls or bolts in the ground. That sounds very UK specific. In OSM I think we need to have descriptions that people everywhere can interpret and make sense of. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
Thank you for creating this proposal, Anne Are the proposed tags "survey_point=benchmark" and "survey_point:hexagonal_bolt" or "survey_point:benchmark=yes" and "survey_point:hexagonal_bolt=yes"? Would it be possible to add some example images? Would this tag be used along with "man_made=survey_point?" only? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point - Joseph Eisenberg On 3/8/20, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > Hi, > > I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like > to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark > The reason being that I would like to also propose > survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it. > > Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its > typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with > arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal > bolts in walls or bolts in the ground. > > Thank you for your time, > > Anne > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark
Hi, I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark The reason being that I would like to also propose survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it. Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal bolts in walls or bolts in the ground. Thank you for your time, Anne ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
