[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile
structure construction :
- *Self-supported pylons* (the "*tower*", mostly looking like the
power=tower in OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in
concrete) ;
- *Guy-wired pylons* (the "*mast*" as described in the engineering
definition where it is a structure held by guys);
- *Self-supported roof structure* (half of them are just simple *antennas*,
the other half are *mast *(the larger structure that clearly hold more than
1 antenna on top of buildings));
- *Guy-wired roof structure* (all of them are *mast*);
- And some other things like on electricity pylons....(all of them are just
antennas on top of something as far as i know).

And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice
pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just "tubes"
(for antennas isolated). So it would correspond to the t
*ower:construction=guyed_lattice* or *guyed_tube* (for mast) and* lattice*
or *freestanding *(for the tower). Note that the older concrete telecom
tower is noted as "tubular pylon".

Thus, as i see it, the *tower *tag is the equivalent of pylon (as in the
power=* tag where the power=tower is the equivalent of what we call
"electricity pylon" here) and the *mast *are either the guy-wired
structures OR the "largest" structures on the roof of buildings (which are
clearly not an unique antenna). And then we need a tag for isolated *antenna
*(i saw that a "telecom=antenna" was proposed on the telecom wiki page and
i used it some times, but that's just a tag to indicate either on a node
(on top of a building) or on another structure (like power=tower) that a
telecom antenna is there. So to me, this covers everything i see in our
database.

If we use the current definition, the only problem i see is for the
"self-supported pylons" which should all be tagged as tower (on engineering
terminology), but could currently be tagged as mast if they don't look like
"big tower". But the problem is minor, as if you look at the tag
"tower:construction", the "guyed_lattice" and "guyed_tube" already say that
it is a 'mast' in the engineering definition (and as far as i know, all
masts are either guyed_lattice or guyed_tube construction !). ;-)

=> And thus, the only change i would make is to the sub-tag
*tower:construction* : using "*lattice*" or "*tube*" for the "freestanding"
towers (the freestanding value is more general but give not much
information as if it is not guyed, i think it is always freestanding). So
at the end, the engineering definition is clearly indicated via this tag.

Best regards,
Lionel

Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
>
> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
> contentious and/or confusing.
>
>
>
> what about this:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg
>
> Actual tagging is even more weird, or does anyone recognize a mansard roof
> here?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306362151
>
> this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English
> definition, but at least for Germans it is a tower.
> I would not require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should
> provide some enclosed space).
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181026/e97ca4fc/attachment-0001.html>