Power Tower Landuse = ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

EthnicFood IsGreat
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:30:31 +0800
> From: Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
>
>
> Though I came lately here, I agree. Indicating the type of industrial area will help
> indicate the industry where the piece of land is used.
>
> --TagaSanPedroAko
>
> On Jul 4, 2017 6:08 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >> communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >> only can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> >> presets to be easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> > landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> > infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> > For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> > Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> > top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> > electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin



I nominate Martin, John Willis, and a few others on this list to form a committee and formulate an organized tagging structure for OSM.  You guys are intelligent and thoughtful and I would trust you to come up with a good solution.  I'm tired of the endless debating back and forth on this list that seldom goes anywhere.

I know this won't happen, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts.

Mark






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

dieterdreist
2017-07-01 0:10 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:

> - Have solid concrete bases covering he entire area
>
> - have a barbwire topped fence around the base
>


in this case you could consider landuse=industrial IMHO.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170701/65fe8bf4/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

John Willis

> On Jul 1, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in this case you could consider landuse=industrial IMHO.


I see that landuse=railway is rendered as industrial in osm-carto, and it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers, communication towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.

I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not only can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to be easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.

industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.

if the industrial landuse is supposed to be used outside factory grounds and major industrial centres (such as a fenced off tower in a rice field or an isolated comm building on a mountain), then we should consider a subtag to help define such uses, or it will be too ambiguous.

Javbw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170704/b74ff6b1/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

dieterdreist
2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:

> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers, communication
> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>
> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not only
> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to be
> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>
> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>


I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).

For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should be
also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).

Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical top
level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors, electronics,
energy, machinery, mining, ...)

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170704/5a7b7b9d/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Jherome Miguel
Though I came lately here, I agree. Indicating the type of industrial area
will help indicate the industry where the piece of land is used.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Jul 4, 2017 6:08 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
>
>> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers, communication
>> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>>
>> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not only
>> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to be
>> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>>
>> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>>
>
>
> I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
>
> For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should be
> also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
>
> Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical top
> level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors, electronics,
> energy, machinery, mining, ...)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170704/48ca4a03/attachment-0001.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Philip Barnes
In reply to this post by dieterdreist


On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

>2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
>
>> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
>communication
>> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>>
>> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
>only
>> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
>be
>> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>>
>> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>>
>
>
>I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
>desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
>landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
>infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
>
>For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
>be
>also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
>
>Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
>top
>level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
>electronics,
>energy, machinery, mining, ...)
>
The correct English term is pylon.

Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.

https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS

Phil (trigpoint)



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170704/25da79e6/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by EthnicFood IsGreat
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
>
>
>
> On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >only
> >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
> >be
> >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> >landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> >infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
> >be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> >top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> >electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> The correct English term is pylon.
>
> Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence of pylons
> does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the land
> beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.
>
> https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
>
> Phil (trigpoint)



In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would defer to the word "pylon."

I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon should have its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in terms of such a small area when they hear the term "landuse."  I think that giving a pylon area a separate landuse is overkill and misleading.

Mark







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

François Lacombe-2
In reply to this post by EthnicFood IsGreat
2017-07-04 15:39 GMT+02:00 Mark Bradley <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com>:

>
> I nominate Martin, John Willis, and a few others on this list to form a
> committee and formulate an organized tagging structure for OSM.  You guys
> are intelligent and thoughtful and I would trust you to come up with a good
> solution.  I'm tired of the endless debating back and forth on this list
> that seldom goes anywhere.
>
> I know this won't happen, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts.
>

Hi Mark,

This doesn't sound so simple (unfortunately)

There was a proposal regarding power supports (where power=tower was quoted)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_supports_refinement

But currently rejected due to important usage of certain "to be changed"
keys/values.
According to that, I'm not sure people would agree to move from tower to
pylon.

Regarding the main topic of this thread, if perimeter at the base of any
power support (it can be pylons, tower, poles, portal, whatever) is
dedicated in any means (often fenced) to power business, I would agree to
use landuse.
If not, crossing landuse may remain.

All the best

Francois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170704/5f5fbfbc/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes


sent from a phone

> On 4. Jul 2017, at 13:14, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.
>
> https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS



I agree that from my personal experience I'd also not expect a different landuse for the area below a power tower, but John gave the example of huge towers which were rising out of a fenced area, and this changes the situation (not generally, but for these), IMHO.

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170704/53de75de/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by EthnicFood IsGreat
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:49:07 -0400
"Mark Bradley" <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> > From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer
> > <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
> > >  
> > >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,  
> > >communication  
> > >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> > >>
> > >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because
> > >> not  
> > >only  
> > >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> > >> presets to  
> > >be  
> > >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> > >>
> > >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> > >>  
> > >
> > >
> > >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this
> > >same landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities,
> > >logistical infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> > >
> > >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > >should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> > >
> > >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of
> > >typical top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile,
> > >semiconductors, electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> > >  
> > The correct English term is pylon.
> >
> > Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the
> > presence of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if
> > they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in
> > the case of this photo natural=wood.
> >
> > https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)  
>
>
>
> In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but
> according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would
> defer to the word "pylon."
>
> I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon
> should have its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in
> terms of such a small area when they hear the term "landuse."  I
> think that giving a pylon area a separate landuse is overkill and
> misleading.

Just wondering: how would you tag something like this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9591891,-118.9945941,334m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

It's a paved and fenced area measuring about 30 meters by 250 meters,
containing two heavily-braced pylons where a major powerline goes over
the crest of a hill.

Or this one, four tightly-spaced pylons carrying lines from Bonneville
Dam to the substation across the river:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6430068,-121.9514778,174m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

Some of these "small areas" are fairly substantial.  Yes, *most* pylons
don't need a separate landuse mapping, but some do.

--
Mark



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Craig Wallace-2
In reply to this post by EthnicFood IsGreat
On 2017-07-04 14:49, Mark Bradley wrote:
> In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but
> according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would
> defer to the word "pylon."
In British English, yes the general public usually call them 'pylons'.
But this is not used by professionals or engineers etc. The electricity
companies nearly always refer to them as 'towers' (or more specifically
'transmission towers').
So I think 'tower' is the correct term in British English anyway.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

John Willis
In reply to this post by dieterdreist


> On Jul 5, 2017, at 1:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the landuse, if they cross farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.

Yes, I agree there instances where the pylons sit on a landuse, and it doesn’t substantially change the surrounding area - natural or man-made. Perhaps that is the most common occurrence of the towers.

Sometimes it is changed to a different natural landuse (scrub,meadow,etc) because people cut corridors through the forest for the wires. This is common around pylons/towers in my region because the towers sit on ridges, and the area immediately surrounding some towers is kept clear of trees, leading to natural=scrub.

Other times, the land is in man-made landuse (farmland) and “abandoned” by the owner left to be used only by the pylon/tower. The land was purchased by the utility, and is often raised or compacted, so the farmer doesn’t use it. This is very common in my region, though I understand that in other countries it is very common to continue farming in the land.

Other times, the towers have barrier separated landuse, with possibly a different landcover - think a large tower near residences, or a comm tower in the wilderness near a mountaintop. Some pylons/towers I deal with are on separate landuses, while others nearby are merely “abandoned” by a farmer, due to the tower’s proximity to a large road.

The “abandoned” and “separated” land used by the pylon/tower IMHO is worth mapping as a desperate landuse.

Almost all comm towers here have a dedicated, fenced landuse, cabinet/shed for a backup generator, and a pole or tower for cellphone antennas. Similarly, I would say this is also a mappable landuse.

Javbw




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

John Willis
Last Saturday, I took some pictures of the towers/pylons near my home. I uploaded 11 images to a flickr album here.

You can easily get an idea of what I am talking about (separated or “abandoned” landuses), and the massive scale of some of the tower/pylons.
there are refs and descriptions for all the large towers/pylons.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/albums/72157682725471832 <https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/albums/72157682725471832>

Javbw.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170705/bff854a0/attachment-0001.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Jherome Miguel
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
"Pylon" would be one common reference to transmission towers in the UK or
elsewhere in Europe, but that is not the case of the United States and
other parts of the world, where "pylon" means something different, that
"tower" is used instead. So, why not call transmission/power towers with
"tower", for others to understand.

And the presence of a transmission tower in agricultural land is, yes, do
not need the change of land use tag. But that will not be the case of
fenced-off towers, like what the author of this thread stated. Though
fenced transmission towers are rare in my country (as almost all of them do
not have ladders or stairs that may be accessed without authorization, that
will require a fence or phsical barrier to block access), tagging a
transmission tower where a fence or physical barrier at ground level is
present with the landuse=industrial (plus a proposed industry= tag) will
help indicate a different land use from the surrounding area.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Jul 4, 2017 7:18 PM, "Philip Barnes" <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:



On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:
>
>> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
>communication
>> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
>>
>> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
>only
>> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
>be
>> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
>>
>> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
>>
>
>
>I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
>desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
>landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
>infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
>
>For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
>be
>also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
>
>Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
>top
>level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
>electronics,
>energy, machinery, mining, ...)
>
The correct English term is pylon.

Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence
of pylons does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross
farmland the land beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this
photo natural=wood.

https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS


Phil (trigpoint)



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

_______________________________________________
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/20170706/4fdc6717/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

Warin
The OSM convention is to use British English.
As an example the word 'colour' is used not 'color'.
I would prefer the continued use of British English.

Many words have more than one meaning. Webster's Dictionary (American)
has 4 definitions of Pylon. The 2nd definition fits the meaning of tower
used in this thread;
/a/ /chiefly British/ :  a tower for supporting either end of usually a
number of wires over a long span/b/ : any of various towerlike structures

While it says 'chiefly British' For 'a:' it does go on to say "/b/ :  
any of various towerlike structures". So it is a known definition, even
in the United States.

On 06-Jul-17 08:17 AM, Jherome Miguel wrote:
>
> "Pylon" would be one common reference to transmission towers in the UK
> or elsewhere in Europe, but that is not the case of the United States
> and other parts of the world, where "pylon" means something different,
> that "tower" is used instead. So, why not call transmission/power
> towers with "tower", for others to understand.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170706/e97927fd/attachment.html>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Power Tower Landuse = ?

John Willis

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So it is a known definition, even in the United States.  


+1  As an american (living in Japan) I use pylons (plural) to refer to the line of the structures, often when viewed from a distance.

Ie: “look at those pylons crossing the mountains.”

Because it is so rare to refer to a single one in general conversation, I never considered the tower/pole/pylon naming dilemma.

However, since I am not primarily a power=* mapper, I just follow the existing OSM definition of power=tower.

However, I am *very* interested in the the landuse=* tag and any others used to define the extent of man-made area usage,

so this is my reason for trying to figure out how to map an area I know shouldn’t be tagged as farmland in my particular situation.


Javbw


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170706/970498a0/attachment-0001.html>