Cool news that they gave the authorization to use it ! And it is always great to have some interest on the telecom side. :D I'll give what i know and some opinion on the tagging. ^_^
For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion in October 2018 on Tagging mailing list ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html) and one output was that the current scheme is probably not good (but nothing was decided) ! :p I had done some manual cleaning on the mast/tower tags 2 years ago i think - i looked at mapillary footage especially for mast/tower along motorways where it is often easy to spot them or did some survey (and we are not many to map these structure so it was quite easy :p ). And the current tagging scheme should be (following the wiki and what was clarified in the discussion) : EITHER : *- man_made=mast / tower *(really subjective, as we don't have real difference but mainly: a tower is generally freestanding and often larger diameter/width (think about (often) concrete telecom tower), while a mast generally have often some guy wires and/or have a small diameter/width (think about metallic mast). *- tower:type=communication* *- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice / guyed_lattice / guyed_tube* ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US) *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the case for all thse one). - *height=* *(if known) OR - *telecom=antenna* (there is no real other tag for antenna alone, and this one is using the telecom=* key as some people want to clarify things). *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the case for all thse one). - *height=** (if known). => Those two are two different things : the first one is a structure that support some antennas (typical GSM mast support multiple antennas), and the second is a standalone antenna (on a rooftop for example). *The BIPT only give antennas, so we must first determine if it is standalone or on a mast or tower.* There is no approved tagging of multiple antennas on 1 mast or tower (you mention the "Radio antennas mapping proposal" but it seems really complicated and easy to break with the relations...). Maybe we should just create *a custom belgian tag *(similar to how the french are tagging their own infrastructure) for the antenna present like : - ref:BE:BIPT=21292 - ref:BE:Proximus=10DLT_01 (or ref:BE:PXS if we want an abbreviation ?! I did use that in the past on street cabinet but i could change it) - ref:BE:Orange=1-32264-W1 - ref:BE:Telenet=_BW4629P Following what is in the technical data and their ID (i took one example having the three operators ;-) ). It would keep the different operator information like it is done on street_cabinet for exemple. It would also be easier to maintain and more difficult to break, because if we put 3 nodes next to each other (1 for each antenna), it would be easily broken by anyone editing the area (especially in ID editor). Note that, the operator tag is difficult to assess for the mast or tower structure as it could be any one of the multiple antenna operator or even someone else (and they don't give this information publicly). So i would not use the operator tag except on individual antenna or mast/tower that would only have 1 antenna. We could also use a subtag like antenna=1/2/3/... if we want to give the number of antenna on a same support (mast or tower) ? Note that there was some discussion of a "potential" proposal in the discussion to change the tagging of "telecom mast and tower" into something looking more like the "power" scheme. Something like that : - telecom=tower (similar to power=tower grouping everything into one tag) - structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes, ... - tower:type=communication - communication:mobile_phone=yes => This proposal is mainly re-using the common tags used for power scheme : structure=* instead of tower:construction (François Lacombe - a french mappers involved a lot in telecom scheme - was proposing that); and telecom=tower instead of man_made=tower or mast (i was proposing that). It would simplify the tagging as we would tag everything easily and refine only in the structure tag. But that was never formally proposed and approved AFAIK. I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of trying to adapt a new tagging scheme for this ahah. *Anyway we can use the current scheme as it would be easier now. ;-) * Kind Regards, Lionel Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36, Midgard <midgard+tal...@janmaes.com> a écrit : > 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 <fa348...@skynet.be> > 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 > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
