[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Aviation obstacle light

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 21:27:42 UTC 2018


On 07-Mar-18 08:55 PM, NKA mapper wrote:
> Thank you for you comments, Warin. Please see my discussion inserted 
> below.
>
>
> Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:48:22 +1100
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>>
>
> > The obstacle is not the light, but the light is used to mark it.
> > Perhaps air_obstacle=tower/line (thinking of power and communication
> > lines as well as towers)
> > If you want to identify air obstacles, if you only want to identify
> > those obstacles that have identifiers then
>
> You are right, the light is not the obstacle. However, I am not trying 
> to tag nor identify all the obstacles. All the obstacles are already 
> defined in OSM as man_made=tower, man_made=mast, man_made=chimney, 
> building=* etc. I would just like to tag the warning light on the 
> obstacle - that is the scope of the proposal. A previous proposal some 
> years ago tried to identify the man_made features as aviation 
> obstacles, but it met considerable resistance and failed.
>
> > Some of these have lights, some have no lights. Some lines have soccer
> > ball things in bright colours.
> > For that maybe airmark:light=yes/flashing_red/* airmark:ball=red/*
>
> Correct, many obstacles are required to be marked with paint for 
> daylight identification, typically aviation red/white horizontal 
> stripes. Power lines across gorges may be required to have "soccer 
> balls". However, in this proposal I only focus on the lights.

Good. But consider the future extension to 'soccer balls' and maybe 
other things.
I think what you want is something like airmark:light=*
>
> > conditional tagging could be used ..
> > light_source:conditional=high intensity flashing white
> > light at sunrise-sunset:low intensity flashing red light at sunset-sunrise
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions>
>
> Yes, I am sure this approach would be possible. However, combining all 
> the various attributes (colour, intensity, character, day/night, ICAO 
> type, multiple) into one line would lead to a complicated syntax 
> without any error checking in the editors and with a high probability 
> of getting it wrong.
The day/night is the conditional thing .. and there is already a syntax 
for that. So no need to invent another syntax to do the same job in a 
different way.

The syntax for the light ... has that not already been done for seamark?
>
> For certain obstacles, such as light masts around a stadium, it would 
> be necessary to use the light tag for the main (flood)light on the 
> mast and the obstacle_light tag (or airmark:light tag) for the 
> (flashing red) warning light on top of the mast. Also, all the 
> obstacles close to the sea already have a defined scheme for tagging 
> the various light attributes in the seamark:light feature, which I try 
> to build on in the proposal.

As the obstacle is not being tagged - leave that word out. What is being 
tagged is a warning light for aircraft .. so airmark:light I think is 
better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180308/4144d89f/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list