<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Maybe "ref:BE:BIPT=XXXX", "operator=Proximux" and
"ref:operator=YYYY", this makes eventual retagging a breeze when
someone renames<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09.03.20 11:39, Lionel Giard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+D7pWwB0FfJJfhijm6W9WSGRkKT1Nm7cP8LmxwLXKLd7phz9g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">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.
^_^
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion
in October 2018 on Tagging mailing list (<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html</a>)
and one output was that the current scheme is probably not
good (but nothing was decided) ! :p </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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) :</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>
<div>EITHER : </div>
</div>
<div>
<div><b>- man_made=mast / tower </b>(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).</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><b>- tower:type=communication</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div><b>- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice /
guyed_lattice / guyed_tube</b> (<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US</a>)</div>
</div>
<div><b>- communication:mobile_phone=yes</b> (if GSM, which
should be the case for all thse one).</div>
<div>- <b>height=* </b>(if known)</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>OR</div>
<div>- <b>telecom=antenna</b> (there is no real other tag for
antenna alone, and this one is using the telecom=* key as
some people want to clarify things).</div>
<div><b>- communication:mobile_phone=yes</b> (if GSM, which
should be the case for all thse one). </div>
<div>- <b>height=*</b> (if known).</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>=> 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). <u><b>The BIPT only give
antennas, so we must first determine if it is standalone
or on a mast or tower.</b></u></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 <u>a custom
belgian tag </u>(similar to how the french are tagging
their own infrastructure) for the antenna present like : </div>
<div>- ref:BE:BIPT=21292</div>
<div>- 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)</div>
<div>- ref:BE:Orange=1-32264-W1</div>
<div>- ref:BE:Telenet=_BW4629P</div>
<div>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). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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) ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 :</div>
<div>- telecom=tower (similar to power=tower grouping everything
into one tag) </div>
<div>- structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes,
...</div>
<div>- tower:type=communication</div>
<div>- communication:mobile_phone=yes</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>=> 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. </div>
<div>I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of
trying to adapt a new tagging scheme for this ahah. <b>Anyway
we can use the current scheme as it would be easier now.
;-) <br>
</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kind Regards,</div>
<div>Lionel</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36,
Midgard <<a href="mailto:midgard%2Btalkbe@janmaes.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">midgard+talkbe@janmaes.com</a>> a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Replying
inline to s8evq and Karel:<br>
<br>
Quoting s8evq (2020-03-08 20:20:34)<br>
> What is the point of adding longitude=* and latitude=* to
the nodes?<br>
<br>
I had overlooked them, but these tags definitely have to be
dropped.<br>
<br>
> How precise are the locations of the antennas in the BIPT
dataset? Do we know what the quality of this data is before
importing?<br>
<br>
The ten or so that I checked were pretty close, within 5
metres. One was either very recent, or<br>
20 metres off. (BIPT has location 51.151194,3.235139 but
there's no structure visible there on<br>
the most recent imagery.)<br>
<br>
In any case, we would get higher quality with a manual review
instead of fully relying on the<br>
source: we can correct errors when the structure is visible on
imagery.<br>
<br>
> Perhaps my questions sound a bit tough, but I appreciate
the effort you put into this.<br>
<br>
Such is an import discussion. Original Poster has my
appreciation too :)<br>
<br>
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:46:38 +0000, Karel Adams <<a
href="mailto:fa348739@skynet.be" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">fa348739@skynet.be</a>> wrote:<br>
> > didn't we<br>
> > have a rule to map only those features visible in
the scenery? The BIPT<br>
> > antennae (sic!) are usually attached to existing
structures, such as<br>
> > church spires or GSM masts or so? Of course we map
those highly visible<br>
> > carrying structures, but to map the individual
antennae seems to me like<br>
> > overdoing things.<br>
<br>
Looking at the source data, it's going to be one node for one
mast, which typically has several<br>
directional antennas mounted on it. A node per antenna is not
something I'd like to see either.<br>
<br>
Off-topic: when referring to the electrical part, "antennas"
is actually the most common form. By the way,<br>
could you maybe start trying to behave more constructive and
socially acceptable? I believe you can<br>
do it with some effort.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Midgard<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet</pre>
</body>
</html>