[OSM-talk-be] IBPT antennas
Pieter Vander Vennet
pietervdvn at posteo.net
Mon Mar 9 16:14:18 UTC 2020
Maybe "ref:BE:BIPT=XXXX", "operator=Proximux" and "ref:operator=YYYY",
this makes eventual retagging a breeze when someone renames
On 09.03.20 11:39, Lionel Giard wrote:
> Cool news that they gave the authorization to use it ! And it is
> always great to have some interest on the telecom side. :D I'll give
> what i know and some opinion on the tagging. ^_^
>
> For the tags to use, there was a (rather long) discussion in October
> 2018 on Tagging mailing list
> (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/thread.html)
> and one output was that the current scheme is probably not good (but
> nothing was decided) ! :p
>
> I had done some manual cleaning on the mast/tower tags 2 years ago i
> think - i looked at mapillary footage especially for mast/tower along
> motorways where it is often easy to spot them or did some survey (and
> we are not many to map these structure so it was quite easy :p ). And
> the current tagging scheme should be (following the wiki and what was
> clarified in the discussion) :
>
> EITHER :
> *- man_made=mast / tower *(really subjective, as we don't have
> real difference but mainly: a tower is generally freestanding and
> often larger diameter/width (think about (often) concrete telecom
> tower), while a mast generally have often some guy wires and/or
> have a small diameter/width (think about metallic mast).
> *- tower:type=communication*
> *- tower:construction=freestanding / lattice / guyed_lattice /
> guyed_tube*
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction?uselang=en-US)
> *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the
> case for all thse one).
> - *height=* *(if known)
>
> OR
> - *telecom=antenna* (there is no real other tag for antenna alone,
> and this one is using the telecom=* key as some people want to
> clarify things).
> *- communication:mobile_phone=yes* (if GSM, which should be the
> case for all thse one).
> - *height=** (if known).
>
>
> => Those two are two different things : the first one is a structure
> that support some antennas (typical GSM mast support multiple
> antennas), and the second is a standalone antenna (on a rooftop for
> example). _*The BIPT only give antennas, so we must first determine if
> it is standalone or on a mast or tower.*_
>
> There is no approved tagging of multiple antennas on 1 mast or tower
> (you mention the "Radio antennas mapping proposal" but it seems really
> complicated and easy to break with the relations...). Maybe we should
> just create _a custom belgian tag _(similar to how the french are
> tagging their own infrastructure) for the antenna present like :
> - ref:BE:BIPT=21292
> - ref:BE:Proximus=10DLT_01 (or ref:BE:PXS if we want an
> abbreviation ?! I did use that in the past on street cabinet but i
> could change it)
> - ref:BE:Orange=1-32264-W1
> - ref:BE:Telenet=_BW4629P
> Following what is in the technical data and their ID (i took one
> example having the three operators ;-) ). It would keep the different
> operator information like it is done on street_cabinet for exemple. It
> would also be easier to maintain and more difficult to break, because
> if we put 3 nodes next to each other (1 for each antenna), it would be
> easily broken by anyone editing the area (especially in ID editor).
>
> Note that, the operator tag is difficult to assess for the mast or
> tower structure as it could be any one of the multiple antenna
> operator or even someone else (and they don't give this information
> publicly). So i would not use the operator tag except on individual
> antenna or mast/tower that would only have 1 antenna.
>
> We could also use a subtag like antenna=1/2/3/... if we want to give
> the number of antenna on a same support (mast or tower) ?
>
>
> Note that there was some discussion of a "potential" proposal in the
> discussion to change the tagging of "telecom mast and tower" into
> something looking more like the "power" scheme. Something like that :
> - telecom=tower (similar to power=tower grouping everything into one tag)
> - structure=guyed_mast, tubes_mast, lattice, tubular/tubes, ...
> - tower:type=communication
> - communication:mobile_phone=yes
>
> => This proposal is mainly re-using the common tags used for power
> scheme : structure=* instead of tower:construction (François Lacombe -
> a french mappers involved a lot in telecom scheme - was proposing
> that); and telecom=tower instead of man_made=tower or mast (i was
> proposing that). It would simplify the tagging as we would tag
> everything easily and refine only in the structure tag. But that was
> never formally proposed and approved AFAIK.
> I don't know if you want to go into the rabbit holes of trying to
> adapt a new tagging scheme for this ahah. *Anyway we can use the
> current scheme as it would be easier now. ;-)
> *
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lionel
>
> Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 00:36, Midgard <midgard+talkbe at janmaes.com
> <mailto:midgard%2Btalkbe at janmaes.com>> a écrit :
>
> Replying inline to s8evq and Karel:
>
> Quoting s8evq (2020-03-08 20:20:34)
> > What is the point of adding longitude=* and latitude=* to the nodes?
>
> I had overlooked them, but these tags definitely have to be dropped.
>
> > How precise are the locations of the antennas in the BIPT
> dataset? Do we know what the quality of this data is before importing?
>
> The ten or so that I checked were pretty close, within 5 metres.
> One was either very recent, or
> 20 metres off. (BIPT has location 51.151194,3.235139 but there's
> no structure visible there on
> the most recent imagery.)
>
> In any case, we would get higher quality with a manual review
> instead of fully relying on the
> source: we can correct errors when the structure is visible on
> imagery.
>
> > Perhaps my questions sound a bit tough, but I appreciate the
> effort you put into this.
>
> Such is an import discussion. Original Poster has my appreciation
> too :)
>
> > On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 17:46:38 +0000, Karel Adams
> <fa348739 at skynet.be <mailto:fa348739 at skynet.be>> wrote:
> > > didn't we
> > > have a rule to map only those features visible in the scenery?
> The BIPT
> > > antennae (sic!) are usually attached to existing structures,
> such as
> > > church spires or GSM masts or so? Of course we map those
> highly visible
> > > carrying structures, but to map the individual antennae seems
> to me like
> > > overdoing things.
>
> Looking at the source data, it's going to be one node for one
> mast, which typically has several
> directional antennas mounted on it. A node per antenna is not
> something I'd like to see either.
>
> Off-topic: when referring to the electrical part, "antennas" is
> actually the most common form. By the way,
> could you maybe start trying to behave more constructive and
> socially acceptable? I believe you can
> do it with some effort.
>
> Kind regards,
> Midgard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Vander Vennet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20200309/78135433/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pietervdvn.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20200309/78135433/attachment.vcf>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list