bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 14:24:03 UTC 2019
I agree that we should focus our mapping efforts primarily on landmark antennae.
Although, there could exist other reasons to map one. For example, I
map broadcast FM radio or TV masts even if they are only a few meters
high, as that helps listeners point their (directional) receiving
antennae. Mapping of WISP sector heads may help determine whether a
given provider will be available in a given flat. HAMs may also prefer
to share their location and channels used this way as a common good
for emergencies. Air traffic control frequencies and location may also
come in handy for hobby fliers.
Technically, there exist various differences between an antenna used
for transmission and one only used for reception. The main issue boils
down to power handling - the SWR of the whole line must be optimized
(tuners are also commonly used), all section must handle both the
amperage and the voltage without overheating or sparking, extra
caution must be exercised against corrosion, safety measures must be
in place for humans and other creatures, special permits must be
You can easily verify whether an antenna transmits and on what
frequency by using a drone with an SDR, triangulation from a distance,
or sometimes simply using a heat camera. Although the power supplies
and lines themselves can also be tell-tale, and you may be able to
read or identify certain model numbers from a distance with the right
Do you think that we should map antennae participating in open
community networks? I've seen people map wireless private cellular
backbone, and the latter feels much less serving public interest
compared to the former.
By the way, this looks like a hot topic:
mast / tower / communication_tower (again):
antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:07 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/19 20:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:
>> It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
>> this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
>> tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish
>> I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
>> "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used
> I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, but I would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" we could have a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these tags are also already used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, lighthouse, bell_tower, water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than cramming everything into a big "pre-category", which isn't useful on its own anymore because of the very broad scope.
> If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could fall out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go into or atop, a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't completely unreasonable either, dishes would also be excluded.
> A tower of a mast could be used for lighting, or an antenna. Or flags, or a signal lamp ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals
> The tag mast or tower should not be assumed to indicate the presence of another feature.
> OSM guide - one feature = one OSM entry.
> So tag the mast/tower.. then add another entry for the antenna (or other feature).
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging