[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 13:16:37 UTC 2018


Am Di., 9. Okt. 2018 um 14:28 Uhr schrieb Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com
>:

>
> My first thought was some sort of "landmark=yes" tag, there is already a
> "denotation=landmark" tag for trees, however it appears like there might
> have been a landmark tag in the past that was deprecated, and I realise
> that it would be a stupid tag because you'd have to tag everything.
>


just because you could tag a lot of stuff, it doesn't mean you have to.
landmark on a tower could be used to denote significance, on the other
hand, most towers will be landmarks.



>
> My next thought was to apply "tourism=viewpoint", however that assumes
> public access to enter the tower. The Eiffel Tower is tagged
> "tourism=attraction" and "tower:type=communication;observation". Could
> tourism=attraction be a good option, it indicates something for tourists
> (or locals) to go and check out a bit like tourism=viewpoint even if you
> can only see it from the ground and can't go inside?
>


-1, tourism=attraction is a prominence flag without real meaning (it is
often hard to verify and it is not applied similarly on a global level
(often not even on a local level). People use it also for stuff they want
to have rendered on the map, and for which there is no established tag.
Therefore, the tag and its rendering actually slow down the development of
tags with more semantic meaning. If you have a specific scope (like
dividing the prominent from the insignificant towers), you should define
the criterion and develop specific tagging to represent it.





>
> Regarding mast vs tower, I've generally tagged buildings as towers (i.e.
> you can enter them even if just a staircase) and non-buildings as a mast
> (including a free standing metal or concrete pole with comms equipment
> mounted atop). I don't really mind, but a clear definition is definitely
> needed because I was unsure until I looked around at a heap of examples and
> just went with the building/non-building distinction.
>


+1, I would not insist for "guyed" for masts, and maybe not even for "free
standing" for towers. I would focus on the presence of platforms, visitors
or at least people regularly going there and staying there (e.g. an airport
control tower). I still believe, most true tower types should be main tags
(man_made=control_tower, ....)

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181009/7b068215/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list