[OSM-talk-be] BIPT antennas

[Lionel Giard]

*@ Vucodil :*
One solution could be to map everything as telecom=antenna if they don't
match a mast/tower (already mapped), and put a "fixme=check if a mast or
tower is present". Note that on a rooftop, you generally don't have a mast
(it is a small support structure that we can just consider being
"telecom=antenna" and maybe in the future, we could use a
"antenna:support=*" tag ;-) ). *[1]*

For mast and tower, use the obvious existing one, or map it if it is
visible (some of them can be easily seen on imagery), and use the
man_made=mast or tower tag like usual and change it later on if needed (if
a future proposal is done for it). :-p

For man_made=antenna, i don't think it is better than telecom=antenna
(neither one or the other was ever approved formally). The telecom key was
created to refine the telecom tagging following the same idea that was used
for the power infrastructure (with the power key). I'm completely in favor
of redesigning the telecom infrastructure tagging like the french community
started to push (especially focused on cable and fiber infrastructure at
the moment), as they seem quite experienced with infrastructure tagging as
they were involve in power tagging... :-p
So using telecom=antenna seems more logical in order to already start using
a "proper" tag instead of a general tag like man_made=antenna (that we
could regret later on). And it can always be changed if/when someone do a
proper proposal and approval process later on (as that would be the only
difference, as the subkey will probably be identical).

antenna:use seems functionally equivalent to the subtag
communication:*=yes/no
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:mobile%20phone?uselang=fr>
(like communication:mobile_phone=yes/no). I don't see an improvement as the
communication:*=yes/no is already used for all mast/tower* (including
power=tower ! *As they can have antenna on them (i don't know if that's the
case in Belgium)*)*, so we should maybe use it for antenna too. ^_^ One
example that i did map like that for an antenna (on top of a watertower
here) was https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5968512028 .

*[1]* I work at one of our telecom company and i can see their structure
data (pylons, mast, ...) and it is very detailed but unfortunately it is
closed data. :D But antenna on rooftop have a structure type :
"self-supported roof structure". ;-)
We should push BIPT to open more infrastructure data. :-D **dreaming* *


Le lun. 9 mars 2020 à 22:18, Vucodil via Talk-be <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
a écrit :

> Hello everyone,
>
> Already thanks for all the feedback! I answer some of your questions in
> the following topics:
>
> *Continuous update (@Midgard and @*
> *rodeo.be <http://rodeo.be> )*
>
> It was in the back of my head but I didn't want to plan it yet. I will
> probably work on that but not soon.
> Note that the list of BIPT antennas is updated monthly. Is there server
> for scheduled scripts within OSM BE ?
>
> *Workflow (@Midgard)*
>
> The distance triggering manual review has been changed to 25m.
>
> > 3) And even then, just dumping elements in OSM without manual review is
> not considered best
> > practice, but since it's only nodes, things are relatively simple and I
> won't object. I would
> > just like to see that they're not placed too close to any other existing
> node, but that can be
> > checked automatically.
>
> Like one meter? Is there JOSM tool for that?
>
> *BIPT (@**Thibault Rommel)*
>
> I agree. I updated the proposal
>
> *Latitude and longitude as tag (@s8evq and **@Midgard**)*
>
> That's a mistake. I only wanted to explain that I use the longitude and
> latitude provided in the dataset. It has been updated.
>
> *Open data Portal (@rodeo.be <http://rodeo.be>)*
>
> Good idea. I will inform BIPT of the positive feedback of the OSM BE
> community and I will kindly push them to do so.
>
> *Precision of the localisation*
>
> Looking alone at 9000 nodes for manual review is quite some work. Would it
> be acceptable to have a FIXME tag stating that the localization could be a
> few meters offset? Or is it considered to pollute the OSM db to do so?
>
> *Tagging (@Lionel**, @Karel Adams, @midgard)*
>
> If I had found the discussion from 2018 before, I would have maybe not
> prepared the import :-D.
>
> *What to map?*
>
> The BITP dataset include a list of sites used in our mobile phone network.
> Each site can include multiple supports for antennas. And each support can
> include multiple directional antennas.
> There is no info on the support in the dataset. That's why I focused on
> mapping the antennas (or the group of antennas). Are they enough visible in
> our landscape?
> I think so. On rooftop in cities, those groups of antennas are often
> visible. Their white color is often even more visible than the support
> itself.
> On other structures like tower, @lionel already mentioned that the
> antennas could be tagged with telecom=antenna
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040276.html
> .
>
> I can understand that there is no proper way to tag the antennas and the
> group of antennas without specifying the support but it seems a bit
> limiting.
>
> *How to map it?*
>
> @Lionel, you didn't comment on the man_made=antenna tag (Status: in use)
> which was also mentioned in the discussion of 2018.
> There is also this proposal from nov 2018 where the man_made=antenna +
> antenna:application=mobile_phone is suggested (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use)
>
> In any case, I don't have enough experiences on tagging and I will follow
> what comes out of this discussion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vucodil
>
> March 9, 2020 11:39:20 AM CET Lionel Giard <lionel.giard at gmail.com> 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> 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>
> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20200310/8e867219/attachment.htm>