Replying inline to s8evq and Karel: Quoting s8evq (2020-03-08 20:20:34) > What is the point of adding longitude=* and latitude=* to the nodes?
I had overlooked them, but these tags definitely have to be dropped. > How precise are the locations of the antennas in the BIPT dataset? Do we know > what the quality of this data is before importing? The ten or so that I checked were pretty close, within 5 metres. One was either very recent, or 20 metres off. (BIPT has location 51.151194,3.235139 but there's no structure visible there on the most recent imagery.) In any case, we would get higher quality with a manual review instead of fully relying on the source: we can correct errors when the structure is visible on imagery. > Perhaps my questions sound a bit tough, but I appreciate the effort you put > into this. Such is an import discussion. Original Poster has my appreciation too :) > On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:46:38 +0000, Karel Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > didn't we > > have a rule to map only those features visible in the scenery? The BIPT > > antennae (sic!) are usually attached to existing structures, such as > > church spires or GSM masts or so? Of course we map those highly visible > > carrying structures, but to map the individual antennae seems to me like > > overdoing things. Looking at the source data, it's going to be one node for one mast, which typically has several directional antennas mounted on it. A node per antenna is not something I'd like to see either. Off-topic: when referring to the electrical part, "antennas" is actually the most common form. By the way, could you maybe start trying to behave more constructive and socially acceptable? I believe you can do it with some effort. Kind regards, Midgard _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
