[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

Jez Nicholson jez.nicholson at gmail.com
Fri Sep 6 07:15:04 UTC 2019


Arriving fresh to a proposal, my first action would be to look at what is
currently in OSM. There are 6,043 "marker"="stone", which is 81.5% of the
usage of "marker" in OSM. I would expect the proposal to support current
usage.

I would then look at "power":"marker" and be very concerned to see 35,288
tags. That's a very strong existing usage. You might be lucky that power
markers aren't as useful to render as power lines, etc.
https://openinframap.org/#12.2/49.49246/0.21175

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm still opposed to this proposal:
>
> This proposal is quite long and complicated-looking. I believe it
> would be better to clarify exactly what tags are new: for example,
> "support", "material" etc are existing tags, not new tags. Please
> update the "Proposal" section at the top to clearly state the tags
> that would be added, and the tags that would be deprecated.
>
> I believe there are 2 tags that are being deprecated: pipeline=marker
> and marker=stone. I don't see the benefit in moving the first from the
> pipeline=* key, where it's really clear that "this is a marker for a
> pipeline" to a new marker key, where the values will be mixed between
> power, communications, pipeline and fire hydrand features (and
> possibly others in the future).
>
> I also think that it's not reasonable to deprecate marker=stone
> without clearly discussing what tag is supposed to replace it.
> According to taginfo, almost all uses of marker=stone are combined
> with boundary=marker, so these are boundary marker stones, "a robust
> physical marker that identifies the start of a land boundary or the
> change in a boundary, especially a change in direction of a boundary."
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 9/6/19, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > The proposal to introduce marker=* key for all kind of utility markers is
> > about to be voted.
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal
> >
> > All previous comments have been solved and any new one will be welcome.
> >
> > Currently, more than 6k object are described with undocumented
> marker=stone
> > which conflicts a bit with proposed marker classification.
> > As those are mainly (to be determined on each situation) highway
> milestones
> > or private ground limits, they're not covered by this proposal
> > A suggestion would to define marker=milestone or marker=land_limit +
> > support=pedestal + material=stone.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > François
> >
> > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 21:22, François Lacombe <
> fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi Jospeh
> >>
> >> This proposal is an attempt to bring consistency in markers mapping, in
> >> two ways :
> >> - Provide a common concept to tag them all.
> >> - Free pipeline=* from some features unrelated directly to pipeline
> >> operation.
> >>
> >> Second point should encourage a mapping good practice I didn't have in
> >> mind in previous pipeline mapping evolutions : the marker shouldn't be
> >> part
> >> of the pipeline way directly as it warns about the presence of pipelines
> >> in
> >> a given range or distances.
> >> Just like road signs should get their own node beside the road instead
> of
> >> be part the highway way.
> >> To me yes, we should encourage to use marker=pipeline instead of
> >> pipeline=marker prior to the last gets *really* used.
> >> 29k features is less than the whole amount of pipeline markers we have
> to
> >> find in France (which is a small area).
> >>
> >> All the best
> >>
> >> François
> >>
> >> Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 06:07, Joseph Eisenberg <
> >> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >>> It looks like the main effect of this proposal would be to replace
> >>> pipeline=marker (used 29k times) with marker=pipeline, though the new
> >>> key
> >>> marker= could also be used for power cables and telecommunications
> >>> cables.
> >>>
> >>> Is it really necessary to change pipeline=marker?
> >>>
> >>> -Joseph
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:10 PM François Lacombe <
> >>> fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is another proposal we were two working on it.
> >>>> It regards several kinds of utility markers usually warning about
> >>>> buried
> >>>> infrastructure beneath them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal
> >>>>
> >>>> Markers are currently described with keys like pipeline=* and power=*
> >>>> although they're not directly involved in infrastructure running
> >>>> processes
> >>>> (like a valve can be on a pipeline for instance).
> >>>> Then it can be useful to define a new key marker=* to gather more
> >>>> categories on OSM (pipeline is for now the most mapped here) and
> >>>> prevent
> >>>> pipeline, power and telecom keys be cluttered with not directly
> related
> >>>> features.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that markers mapping is important on OSM as location signs and
> >>>> relevant data to verify presence of not visible infrastructures.
> >>>>
> >>>> Feel free to raise concerns here and on talk page.
> >>>>
> >>>> All the best
> >>>>
> >>>> François
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Tagging mailing list
> >>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Tagging mailing list
> >>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190906/0d86c30b/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list