Arriving fresh to a proposal, my first action would be to look at what is currently in OSM. There are 6,043 "marker"="stone", which is 81.5% of the usage of "marker" in OSM. I would expect the proposal to support current usage.
I would then look at "power":"marker" and be very concerned to see 35,288 tags. That's a very strong existing usage. You might be lucky that power markers aren't as useful to render as power lines, etc. https://openinframap.org/#12.2/49.49246/0.21175 On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm still opposed to this proposal: > > This proposal is quite long and complicated-looking. I believe it > would be better to clarify exactly what tags are new: for example, > "support", "material" etc are existing tags, not new tags. Please > update the "Proposal" section at the top to clearly state the tags > that would be added, and the tags that would be deprecated. > > I believe there are 2 tags that are being deprecated: pipeline=marker > and marker=stone. I don't see the benefit in moving the first from the > pipeline=* key, where it's really clear that "this is a marker for a > pipeline" to a new marker key, where the values will be mixed between > power, communications, pipeline and fire hydrand features (and > possibly others in the future). > > I also think that it's not reasonable to deprecate marker=stone > without clearly discussing what tag is supposed to replace it. > According to taginfo, almost all uses of marker=stone are combined > with boundary=marker, so these are boundary marker stones, "a robust > physical marker that identifies the start of a land boundary or the > change in a boundary, especially a change in direction of a boundary." > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > On 9/6/19, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all > > > > The proposal to introduce marker=* key for all kind of utility markers is > > about to be voted. > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal > > > > All previous comments have been solved and any new one will be welcome. > > > > Currently, more than 6k object are described with undocumented > marker=stone > > which conflicts a bit with proposed marker classification. > > As those are mainly (to be determined on each situation) highway > milestones > > or private ground limits, they're not covered by this proposal > > A suggestion would to define marker=milestone or marker=land_limit + > > support=pedestal + material=stone. > > > > All the best > > > > François > > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 21:22, François Lacombe < > fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> > > a écrit : > > > >> Hi Jospeh > >> > >> This proposal is an attempt to bring consistency in markers mapping, in > >> two ways : > >> - Provide a common concept to tag them all. > >> - Free pipeline=* from some features unrelated directly to pipeline > >> operation. > >> > >> Second point should encourage a mapping good practice I didn't have in > >> mind in previous pipeline mapping evolutions : the marker shouldn't be > >> part > >> of the pipeline way directly as it warns about the presence of pipelines > >> in > >> a given range or distances. > >> Just like road signs should get their own node beside the road instead > of > >> be part the highway way. > >> To me yes, we should encourage to use marker=pipeline instead of > >> pipeline=marker prior to the last gets *really* used. > >> 29k features is less than the whole amount of pipeline markers we have > to > >> find in France (which is a small area). > >> > >> All the best > >> > >> François > >> > >> Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 06:07, Joseph Eisenberg < > >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> > >>> It looks like the main effect of this proposal would be to replace > >>> pipeline=marker (used 29k times) with marker=pipeline, though the new > >>> key > >>> marker= could also be used for power cables and telecommunications > >>> cables. > >>> > >>> Is it really necessary to change pipeline=marker? > >>> > >>> -Joseph > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:10 PM François Lacombe < > >>> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Here is another proposal we were two working on it. > >>>> It regards several kinds of utility markers usually warning about > >>>> buried > >>>> infrastructure beneath them. > >>>> > >>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal > >>>> > >>>> Markers are currently described with keys like pipeline=* and power=* > >>>> although they're not directly involved in infrastructure running > >>>> processes > >>>> (like a valve can be on a pipeline for instance). > >>>> Then it can be useful to define a new key marker=* to gather more > >>>> categories on OSM (pipeline is for now the most mapped here) and > >>>> prevent > >>>> pipeline, power and telecom keys be cluttered with not directly > related > >>>> features. > >>>> > >>>> Note that markers mapping is important on OSM as location signs and > >>>> relevant data to verify presence of not visible infrastructures. > >>>> > >>>> Feel free to raise concerns here and on talk page. > >>>> > >>>> All the best > >>>> > >>>> François > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging