[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extended tags for Key:Surveillance

Frank Villaro-Dixon frank at villaro-dixon.eu
Thu Feb 14 16:57:52 UTC 2013

On 14/02/13 16:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2013/2/14 Frank Villaro-Dixon <frank at villaro-dixon.eu>:
>> it's been some years now that this proposed feature has been in the draft
>> section.
>> I think it's now the time to RFC on this feature, what do you think ?
>> The future goal is to starting to import/add correctly the CCTV public
>> cameras in OSM.
>> Let me know if you have things to say ;)
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance
> Nice, finally the open burglary map comes closer ;-)
Nah, it shouldn’t be seen that way ;)
> I have 2 remarks:
> 1. regarding guard there might be some overlap with this tag:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier:personnel
Well, the two are a bit different, I think:
-Barrier would be for "entrances" (UN, consulates, etc..)
-Guard would be more for surveillance things: power plants, etc..

Of course, normally, every building that would have a Guard, would also 
have a Barrier:personnel

What do you think ?
> 2. Isn't there one parameter missing to deduct the actual area covered
> by a camera? I'd think you needed 3 values: direction the camera
> points to (in 3d, e.g. azimuth and  altitude) plus the field of view
> or focal length. This is of course purely theoretical because the
> cameras might be able to move and most mappers won't probably be able
> to add high precision orientation data (usually you will have to
> estimate these values).
Yep, haven't thought of that.
Usually, site who represent these cameras
(eg: http://www.sous-surveillance.net/)
have and approximate view of the camera based only on the orientation of 
the camera.

focal length (camera:focal ?) isn't a bad idea, but I think that the 
most important tag is camera:direction.
> cheers,
> Martin

Frank Villaro-Dixon - PGP: 6F36914A

More information about the Tagging mailing list