Hi,
@Midgard
> Vucodil, where can I find the source for the advanced data about the
> antennas, like the reference
> codes? In the list I downloaded from BIPT, I only find the coordinates.
I'm accessing a kind of endpoint/api (via javascript). When you click on
"search for a site", insert nothing and search, you get a list of IDs.
In this case, you are accessing the same endpoint.
@Lionel
> One solution could be to map everything as telecom=antenna if they don't
> match a mast/tower (already mapped), and put a "fixme=check if a mast or
> tower is present". Note that on a rooftop, you generally don't have a mast
> (it > is a small support structure that we can just consider being
> "telecom=antenna" and maybe in the future, we could use a "antenna:support=*"
> tag ;-) ).
ok so we could also check if the antenna is located on a osm building. If it is
the case, the fix me should not be needed.
I will adapt the import proposal with what Lionel suggested and with the other
suggestions. And then, I will bring it back to the mailing list.
Best regards
Vucodil
March 10, 2020 11:50:31 AM CET Lionel Giard <[email protected]> wrote:
@ Vucodil :
One solution could be to map everything as telecom=antenna if they don't match
a mast/tower (already mapped), and put a "fixme=check if a mast or tower is
present". Note that on a rooftop, you generally don't have a mast (it is a
small support structure that we can just consider being "telecom=antenna" and
maybe in the future, we could use a "antenna:support=*" tag ;-) ). [1]
For mast and tower, use the obvious existing one, or map it if it is visible
(some of them can be easily seen on imagery), and use the man_made=mast or
tower tag like usual and change it later on if needed (if a future proposal is
done for it). :-p
For man_made=antenna, i don't think it is better than telecom=antenna (neither
one or the other was ever approved formally). The telecom key was created to
refine the telecom tagging following the same idea that was used for the power
infrastructure (with the power key). I'm completely in favor of redesigning the
telecom infrastructure tagging like the french community started to push
(especially focused on cable and fiber infrastructure at the moment), as they
seem quite experienced with infrastructure tagging as they were involve in
power tagging... :-p
So using telecom=antenna seems more logical in order to already start using a
"proper" tag instead of a general tag like man_made=antenna (that we could
regret later on). And it can always be changed if/when someone do a proper
proposal and approval process later on (as that would be the only difference,
as the subkey will probably be identical).
antenna:use seems functionally equivalent to the subtag communication:*=yes/no
(like communication:mobile_phone=yes/no). I don't see an improvement as the
communication:*=yes/no is already used for all mast/tower (including
power=tower ! As they can have antenna on them (i don't know if that's the case
in Belgium)), so we should maybe use it for antenna too. ^_^ One example that i
did map like that for an antenna (on top of a watertower here) was
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5968512028 .
[1] I work at one of our telecom company and i can see their structure data
(pylons, mast, ...) and it is very detailed but unfortunately it is closed
data. :D But antenna on rooftop have a structure type : "self-supported roof
structure". ;-)
We should push BIPT to open more infrastructure data. :-D *dreaming*
Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 22:18, Vucodil via Talk-be <[email protected]> a
écrit :
Hello everyone,
Already thanks for all the feedback! I answer some of your questions in the
following topics:
Continuous update (@Midgard and @rodeo.be )
It was in the back of my head but I didn't want to plan it yet. I will probably
work on that but not soon.
Note that the list of BIPT antennas is updated monthly. Is there server for
scheduled scripts within OSM BE ?
Workflow (@Midgard)
The distance triggering manual review has been changed to 25m.
> 3) And even then, just dumping elements in OSM without manual review is not
> considered best
> practice, but since it's only nodes, things are relatively simple and I
won't object. I would
> just like to see that they're not placed too close to any other existing
node, but that can be
> checked automatically.
Like one meter? Is there JOSM tool for that?
BIPT (@Thibault Rommel)
I agree. I updated the proposal
Latitude and longitude as tag (@s8evq and @Midgard)
That's a mistake. I only wanted to explain that I use the longitude and
latitude provided in the dataset. It has been updated.
Open data Portal (@rodeo.be)
Good idea. I will inform BIPT of the positive feedback of the OSM BE community
and I will kindly push them to do so.
Precision of the localisation
Looking alone at 9000 nodes for manual review is quite some work. Would it be
acceptable to have a FIXME tag stating that the localization could be a few
meters offset? Or is it considered to pollute the OSM db to do so?
Tagging (@Lionel, @Karel Adams, @midgard)
If I had found the discussion from 2018 before, I would have maybe not prepared
the import :-D.
What to map?
The BITP dataset include a list of sites used in our mobile phone network. Each
site can include multiple supports for antennas. And each support can include
multiple directional antennas.
There is no info on the support in the dataset. That's why I focused on mapping
the antennas (or the group of antennas). Are they enough visible in our
landscape?
I think so. On rooftop in cities, those groups of antennas are often visible.
Their white color is often even more visible than the support itself.
On other structures like tower, @lionel already mentioned that the antennas
could be tagged with telecom=antenna
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040276.html.
I can understand that there is no proper way to tag the antennas and the group
of antennas without specifying the support but it seems a bit limiting.
How to map it?
@Lionel, you didn't comment on the man_made=antenna tag (Status: in use) which
was also mentioned in the discussion of 2018.
There is also this proposal from nov 2018 where the man_made=antenna +
antenna:application=mobile_phone is suggested
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use)
In any case, I don't have enough experiences on tagging and I will follow what
comes out of this discussion.
Best regards,
Vucodil
March 9, 2020 11:39:20 AM CET Lionel Giard <[email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
