[Tagging] MAST RELATION

[yo paseopor]

First of all, good option! All ideas trying to advance in micromapping and
real mapping are welcome.

Second. I would also add a layer key in each item, the order in a relation
is not enough to analyze the order for the object by itself (like some
group of traffic signs). These items have their own id and can have
different meaning depending of the position of the traffic sign (also for
3D purposes would be interesting to have this exact info in the item, not
only the relation.). Also if you want to micromap it to inventory purposes
is important that almost there would be one node per object (with its keys
and ids) . And to make it micromapping easier it is not a big problem if
you separate the nodes a little , to be picked.

Third: similar things I have read before. For example, for enabling other
attachments what about a tweak of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Node ?

Health and maps
yopaseopor

On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:07 PM thigpen--- via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> HELLO EVERYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME THOUGHTS ON AN EARLY BRAINSTORM
> OF A MAST RELATION. PLEASE SEE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS BELOW AND I WELCOME ANY
> ADDITION, FEEDBACK, SUGGESTIONS, ETC.
>
> -----
>
> MAST RELATION
>
>
> MAST RELATIONS ARE USED TO CONVEY MULTIPLE ELEMENTS THAT EXIST ON A SINGLE
> MAST OR BETWEEN TWO MASTS SUCH AS MULTIPLE STREET SIGNS ON A SINGLE POST OR
> A LARGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH MULTIPLE TYPES AND SIZES OF
> EQUIPMENT, OR A FLAGPOLE WITH MULTIPLE FLAGS.
>
>
> EACH ELEMENT SHOULD BE TAGGED AS A NODE WHERE THEY ARE IN THE WORLD, EVEN
> IF THAT MEANS OVERLAPPING NODES. EACH ELEMENT SHOULD BE TAGGED IN THE
> RELATION WITH AN EMPTY ROLE, IN ORDER OF FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE GROUND TO
> THE CLOSEST TO THE GROUND AND FROM THE FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE CENTER TO THE
> CLOSEST TO THE CENTER. SUCH RELATION ORDERING IS COMMONLY USED IN ROUTE
> RELATIONS AND WILL APPLY TO MAST RELATIONS AS WELL.
>
>
> FOR EXAMPLE, IF A STOP SIGN IS BELOW A STREET SIGN IN THE UNITED STATES,
> BUT THEY SHARE A POLE, THE TAGGING WOULD BE:
>
>
> RELATION
>
> `TYPE=MAST`
>
>
> STREET SIGN
>
> `TRAFFIC_SIGN=US:D3-1 [MAIN STREET]`
>
>
> STOP SIGN
>
> `TRAFFIC_SIGN=US:R1-1`
>
>
> IN THE ORDER OF STREET SIGN, STOP SIGN.
>
>
> THIS RELATION CAN ALSO BE USED FOR THINGS LIKE SIGNS OR CAMERAS THAT SHARE
> A POST WITH A UTILITY WIRE, LARGE ADVERTISING BILLBOARDS WITH SIGNS FACING
> MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS, AND FLAGPOLES WITH MULTIPLE FLAGS.
>
>
> WITH REGARD TO STREET LIGHTS ON WIRES, THIS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS
> BUS ROUTES THAT ARE NOT A LOOP, WHERE 3 RELATIONS ARE NECESSARY. ONE FROM
> THE PERSPECTIVE OF EACH POLE, AND AN OVERALL MAST RELATION TO HOUSE BOTH
> (OR ALL) RELATIONS ON THE LINE.
>
>
> THE USE OF HEIGHT AND LAYER IS ENCOURAGED BUT NOT REQUIRED. IF A WIRE IS
> USED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE WIRE ITSELF SHOULD BE PART OF THE RELATION AS
> WELL, JUST AS WAYS ARE A PART OF A BUS ROUTE.
>
>
> IDEALLY, ELEMENTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE RELATION WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING
> NODE, TO BE PLACED IN THE SAME COORDINATE AS THE RELATION IN THE DATABASE.
> THIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IS NOT A CAPABILITY OPENSTREETMAP HAS AS OF WRITING.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250307/12fa0840/attachment-0001.htm>