On 07-Mar-18 08:55 PM, NKA mapper wrote:
Thank you for you comments, Warin. Please see my discussion inserted
Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:48:22 +1100
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>
> The obstacle is not the light, but the light is used to mark it.
> Perhaps air_obstacle=tower/line (thinking of power and communication
> lines as well as towers)
> If you want to identify air obstacles, if you only want to identify
> those obstacles that have identifiers then
You are right, the light is not the obstacle. However, I am not trying
to tag nor identify all the obstacles. All the obstacles are already
defined in OSM as man_made=tower, man_made=mast, man_made=chimney,
building=* etc. I would just like to tag the warning light on the
obstacle - that is the scope of the proposal. A previous proposal some
years ago tried to identify the man_made features as aviation
obstacles, but it met considerable resistance and failed.
> Some of these have lights, some have no lights. Some lines have soccer
> ball things in bright colours.
> For that maybe airmark:light=yes/flashing_red/* airmark:ball=red/*
Correct, many obstacles are required to be marked with paint for
daylight identification, typically aviation red/white horizontal
stripes. Power lines across gorges may be required to have "soccer
balls". However, in this proposal I only focus on the lights.
Good. But consider the future extension to 'soccer balls' and maybe
I think what you want is something like airmark:light=*
The day/night is the conditional thing .. and there is already a syntax
for that. So no need to invent another syntax to do the same job in a
> conditional tagging could be used ..
> light_source:conditional=high intensity flashing white
> light@sunrise-sunset:low intensity flashing red light@sunset-sunrise
Yes, I am sure this approach would be possible. However, combining all
the various attributes (colour, intensity, character, day/night, ICAO
type, multiple) into one line would lead to a complicated syntax
without any error checking in the editors and with a high probability
of getting it wrong.
The syntax for the light ... has that not already been done for seamark?
For certain obstacles, such as light masts around a stadium, it would
be necessary to use the light tag for the main (flood)light on the
mast and the obstacle_light tag (or airmark:light tag) for the
(flashing red) warning light on top of the mast. Also, all the
obstacles close to the sea already have a defined scheme for tagging
the various light attributes in the seamark:light feature, which I try
to build on in the proposal.
As the obstacle is not being tagged - leave that word out. What is being
tagged is a warning light for aircraft .. so airmark:light I think is
Tagging mailing list