[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 22:17:12 UTC 2018


FYI, currently the height and tower:type of man_made=tower is used to set
the zoom level where it appears on the Openstreetmap-carto style sheet
(“standard” style).

But man_made=communications_tower is assumed to be big and tall, so it
renders like a >100m tall tower with no type, or tower:type=communication
or observation, visible at zoom level 13.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:04 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 04:03, SelfishSeahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Regarding the unclear man_made=communications_tower tag, nobody wrote
>> that she or he is opposed to deprecating it. Do we still need a
>> deprecation proposal? (Note that it wasn't introduced by a proposal.)
>>
>
> Just catching back up to OSM & this discussion after a week away.
>
> Do we also need a RFC / vote to amend the wiki page, or can I just amend
> it & clear up the bad reference photo's?
>
> I'd be looking at combining the mentioned engineering definition with the
> popular opinion expressed here to become:
>
> A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
> access only
>
> A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
> access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically
> distinguished from "buildings <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building>"
> in that they are not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")
>
> Replacing man_made=communications_tower with man-made=tower;
> tower=multi_purpose. Yes they're used for communication in that they have
> antennae mounted on them, but are also usually tourist spots with lookouts
> & so on, where normal TV towers etc aren't. I'd even suggest a automatic
> edit to reclassify them - TagInfo says there are currently ~3700
> communications_towers, whereas
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers suggest there should
> probably be <100. As mentioned previously, there's currently ~200 of them
> tagged in Australia. From checking them at random, it would appear there
> should be 1!
>
> Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
> this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
> into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181025/626713e3/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list