"satellit"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"satellit"

Jean-Marc Liotier
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values mentions
"parabolic_satellit" "parabolic_satellit_uplink" and
"parabolic_satellite_uplink". I have two remarks about that...

First, evidently, "satellit" is wrong and should be "satellite"... Or have
I missed something ? Unless someone explains that "satellit" is a distinct
legit concept, I'll replace it globally with "satellite".

Second, do we want to specify "_uplink" where appropriate ? Most parabola
large enough to tag in Openstreetmap are going to feature an uplink. But
most important, the physical features of downlink and uplink/downlink
antennas are identical - the same antenna might even have more than one
feeder to switch its purpose. So, should we have only
"parabolic_satellite" or both "parabolic_satellite" and
"parabolic_satellite_uplink" ? Or should we leave the antenna's purpose to
a subtag (something like
antenna:purpose=downlink;uplink;uplink/downlink;tracking;etc.) ? I admit I
like the subtag option because it shifts the problem to somewhere it won't
complicate the mapping of physical features...

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

dieterdreist
I would expect the "uplink" information to be relevant, as most satellite antennas are used for receiving only (those private tv reception antennas).
Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll see people will likely tag it ;-)

Subtagging (or a property) seems better for the "uplink" information, because it doesn't require people to know the details in order to map something, I agree.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-04 11:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll see people will likely tag it ;-)


Personally I counter this for lack of observability/verifiability.

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

"At the core, "verifiability" is that everything you do can be demonstrated to be true or false - the latter hopefully implying that there has been a change on the ground that needs mapping. We apply this not only to the mapping data itself, but also to the way in which we record it - the tags and values we use to describe the attributes of objects on the map. From a given scenario, a tag/value combination is verifiable if and only if independent users when observing the same feature would make the same observation every time. For a user's tagging to be verifiable, it is desirable to have objective criteria for tagging. This principle applies to any observable characteristic which is a matter of fact, be it numerical or descriptive - a concrete road surface, a red brick building, etc. "

Isn't the above an OSM tenet any more?

Sergio


P.S.: yeah, I know it is a "lost cause", but anyway...


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 04/03/19 21:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I would expect the "uplink" information to be relevant, as most satellite antennas are used for receiving only (those private tv reception antennas).
Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll see people will likely tag it ;-)

Subtagging (or a property) seems better for the "uplink" information, because it doesn't require people to know the details in order to map something, I agree.



+1 to having uplink/downlink' as a sub tag. Actually I think Tx/Rx (transmit/receive/transceiver) are better as that can be used on terrestrial antennas and has more detail. And yes these would need some knowledge to tag correctly for some installations. These can be seen as a property of the antenna, But I would not use the words 'type', 'property',


The disk is technically not the antenna, it is a reflector.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use for a proposed collection of tags
  • antenna:application = mobile_phone/broadcast_radio/broadcast_television/citizens_band/amateur_radio/radar/* to state the application of an antenna’s signal is put.
  • antenna:propagation =reception/transmission/two_way to denote the direction of the signal.
  • antenna:configuration = monopole/dipole/yagi/log_periodic/horn/curtain/helical/phased_array/loop/* To state the antenna configuration.
  • antenna:polarisation = vertical/horizontal/dual/circular/* to denote the signal polarisation.
  • antenna:reflector = dish/wire_element/wire_screen/* To state the antennas reflector – if it has one.
  • antenna:cover = radome/* To state the antennas protective cover – if it has one.







_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Jean-Marc Liotier
On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use

This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
see it" test.

man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !

Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.

Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

> On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use
> This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
> see it" test.
>
> man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
> communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
> really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
> monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !
>
> Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
> antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.
>
> Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
> offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
> rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
> not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.

Sympathies!

An alternative is available ...

man_made=antenna

dish=yes

cross_gain_feed=yes

two_way=yes

satellite=yes

----------------------
This does open it up for adding 2 things that are mutually exclusive eg
yagi=yes
monopole=yes

but in other respects is easier to use.





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Jean-Marc Liotier
On 2019-03-05 10:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

> On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use
> This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
> see it" test.
>
> man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
> communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
> really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
> monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !
>
> Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
> antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.
>
> Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
> offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
> rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
> not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.
+1!

As far as I'm concerned, lack of observability and/or lack of verifiability are a no-go for inclusion in OSM!

Sergio



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Warin

On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote:

On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use
This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
see it" test.

man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !

Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.

Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.

Sympathies!

An alternative is available ...

man_made=antenna

dish=yes

So far, so good.


cross_gain_feed=yes

What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (for more than 30 years) and I never heard of that term... :-/


two_way=yes

Prove that!


satellite=yes

Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons to point an antenna at the sky...


----------------------
This does open it up for adding 2 things that are mutually exclusive eg
yagi=yes
monopole=yes

but in other respects is easier to use.


Sergio



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
On 05/03/19 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote:

On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use
This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
see it" test.

man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !

Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.

Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.

Sympathies!

An alternative is available ...

man_made=antenna

dish=yes

So far, so good.


cross_gain_feed=yes

What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (for more than 30 years) and I never heard of that term... :-/


Arr  casse grain ... apologies. (added word to spell checker)

How is the reflecting dish signal connected? There must be a real antenna that does that.
And then there is the way the antenna gets the reflected signal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna



There is a lot to learn, we should have more life times ...


two_way=yes

Prove that!

As an example: This may be a TV studio where TV programs are transmitted to a satellite for distribution.
As a TV studio it may also receive TV signals from remote broadcasts... or other TV studios connected to the satellite.

OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information.


satellite=yes

Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons to point an antenna at the sky...


Again? If you don't know .. don't tag it. But don't deny others from adding stuff they do know.

Don't know that a road is closed in winter? then don't tag it.
Know that a road is closed in winter - tag it.
Come across an open road in summer that is tagged closed in winter ... and you want to verify the closure? Come back in winter or contact the relevant mapper.

The most common antenna people see are TV antennas, most pople know what they are and can tag them at least the basics. Next would be mobile phone antennas. After that they are not so well known, most would have to look them up to find out what they are.






_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-05 23:48, Warin wrote:
On 05/03/19 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote:

On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use
This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I
see it" test.

man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite
communications antenna I just spotted... But what the naïve mapper I am
really wants is man_made=antenna + antenna=dish (or
monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...) : "map it as I see it" !

Then one can add antenna:propagation, antenna:application,
antenna:propagation, antenna:polarisation etc. but they are accessory.

Am I mistaken in believing that the main tags chain should focus on
offering a straightforward way to map the apparent physical features,
rather than invisible distinctions ? Not that invisible distinctions are
not welcome too - but they should stay out of the way.

Sympathies!

An alternative is available ...

man_made=antenna

dish=yes

So far, so good.


cross_gain_feed=yes

What does that mean? I'm a licensed radio amateur (for more than 30 years) and I never heard of that term... :-/


Arr  casse grain ... apologies. (added word to spell checker)


Ah, OK, a Cassegrain antenna, one with the Illuminator on (or close to) the surface of the main concave reflector and a secondary convex reflector. Amazing, but it takes the name from the inventor of this design, Laurant Cassegrain, 1629-1693!!!  :-)


How is the reflecting dish signal connected? There must be a real antenna that does that.
And then there is the way the antenna gets the reflected signal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna



There is a lot to learn, we should have more life times ...

two_way=yes

Prove that!

As an example: This may be a TV studio where TV programs are transmitted to a satellite for distribution.
As a TV studio it may also receive TV signals from remote broadcasts... or other TV studios connected to the satellite.


I'm sure you understand that the above argument isn't worth a dime: you only move the issue of "knowing" that an antenna is a two ways antenna to the one of "knowing" that below the antenna there is a production studio broadcasting stuff and therefore there must be a two_ways antenna somewhere on the roof: one of the probably many antennas up there.


OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information.


Really? OSM accepts 'knowledge' as a suitable source of information? Whose knowledge? How verifiable? I don't know if this is really an official policy (to me it seems to violate the observability and verifiability principles), but if it really is (is it?), I tell you, I'm not interested in that kind of information: in a GIS I only trust observable and verifiable truths, even if you have all the rights to "map your knowledge".


satellite=yes

Prove that! Because it points at the sky? There are many other good reasons to point an antenna at the sky...


Again? If you don't know .. don't tag it. But don't deny others from adding stuff they do know.

Don't know that a road is closed in winter? then don't tag it.
Know that a road is closed in winter - tag it.
Come across an open road in summer that is tagged closed in winter ... and you want to verify the closure? Come back in winter or contact the relevant mapper.


Yes, sorry, again and again. Of course if I don't know something I will not tag it, but I'm more concerned about those who thinks or pretend to know and will tag "something" which is not generally and easily verifiable.

If on the antenna on the roof there is a board stating "This is a two_ways antenna" and on the road there is a board stating its winter closure, I fully accept the tagging. If there is no such board I don't trust that information, nor for the antenna, nor for the road and I'll seek more reliable sources of information (of course the "boards" could be "virtual boards", such as officially published information from the road/building operator).


The most common antenna people see are TV antennas, most pople know what they are and can tag them at least the basics. Next would be mobile phone antennas. After that they are not so well known, most would have to look them up to find out what they are.


Now tell me that you really expect (and hope) to map all TV antennas in the world, on the roof of their respective buildings. You understand we are in all likelihood talking of billions (10^9) objects, do you? And you surely understand that such huge quantity of information will cause inefficiencies (and costs...) for the system.

I'm also very much unsure that a system like the OSM DB lends particularly well to handle that kind of information in such huge numbers. I think we would probably need a 3D object oriented GIS system for that, and again a CAD system would probably be even better at certain scales and for certain kind of information.

Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "Cui prodest"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy.


Cheers!

Sergio


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote:
Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "Cui prodest"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy.

Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is a mess.

I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable for those that want it.

A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some guidance on it.
The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-06 03:20, Warin wrote:
On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote:
Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "Cui prodest"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy.

Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is a mess.

I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable for those that want it.

A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some guidance on it.
The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'.


My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna).

Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "noise level" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy.

The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks.

Sergio



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
On 06/03/19 13:31, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-06 03:20, Warin wrote:
On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote:
Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "Cui prodest"? Who is going to benefit from such information? Those with a concrete interest in such information will surely already have their accurate sources of information and disregard our fragmentary and sparse information of unknown accuracy.

Unfortunately people are tagging antennas .. in all sorts of ways. And it is a mess.

I seek to provide some constancy so that the information is at least usable for those that want it.

A short look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values will give you a feeling of what is happening and why there needs to be some guidance on it.
The numbers are small .. but best to provide some guidance now rather than end up with 'oh but it is in use so we cannot fix it now'.


My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna).


I am one of those 88. Well at least one who has modified other peoples work on some antennas that have been mapped.
An example ... Way: Murchison Widefield Array (607964749) - there will be 2,048 dipole arrays here .. I have chose to map them as an area as that is easiest at least for the moment.

I have tagged it as
  "website"="http://www.mwatelescope.org/"
    "man_made"="telescope"
    "telescope:type"="radio"
    "name"="Murchison Widefield Array"
    "description"="2048 dual-polarization dipoles when combined forms a single telescope"
    "antenna:polarisation"="dual"
    "antenna:configuration"="dipole array"
    "antenna:propagation"="reception"
    "frequency"="80 - 300 MHz"

There are located near a collection of other radio telescopes ... higher frequency ones .. with steerable dishes.

Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "noise level" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy.

The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks.



The ones I am mapping are certainly conspicuous.

So .. what is the best way to map them?

That is the function of this list, does not matter how many.. just get the tagging as good as we can and then let the mappers use or not use it.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Jean-Marc Liotier
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote:
My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna).

Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "noise level" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy.

The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks

We are currently at 7252 for man_made=antenna alone (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna) and then there are all the strange things such as (man_made=mast + tower:type=communication) which may or may not record a mast with antennas.

But yes, my goal is landmarks such as conspicuous parabolas, not my neighbour's pet yagi.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Jean-Marc Liotier
In reply to this post by Warin
On 3/6/19 6:00 AM, Warin wrote:
> So .. what is the best way to map them?

My proposal would be a straightforward main tags chain to describe the
physical landmark features - and then all the extra sauce specialists
might want, but in a way that won't complicate the basics. So...

man_made=antenna
antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...)

and then radio aficionados may add as much of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use as
they want (so we would amend this proposal to make it a complement to
the physical landmark features main tags).



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Jean-Marc Liotier

On 2019-03-06 08:46, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote:
My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna).

Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "noise level" and that all energy "invested" in trying to regulate this is... lost energy.

The only antennas I would personally map and tag are those who are enough conspicuous to represent landmarks

We are currently at 7252 for man_made=antenna alone (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=antenna) and then there are all the strange things such as (man_made=mast + tower:type=communication) which may or may not record a mast with antennas.

But yes, my goal is landmarks such as conspicuous parabolas, not my neighbour's pet yagi.

oops, yes, you're right, I only checked those antenna that do have an associated antenna=* key (about 1 in 15), but anyway we are not talking about huge numbers.

To put things in perspective, and just as  an example, we have about 186000 amenity=drinking_water, that is an antenna every 26 water taps...

If for those 7252 antennas (out of billions) someone is willing to tag technical characteristics like operating frequency and polarization, my objection about verifiability and observability still hold, but please, go ahead if you really want.

I still fail to see who could benefit from that fragmentary, sparse, information of unknown quality: I surely would not (but I'd probably be interested into knowing how high the antenna stands and approximately how big it is...).

Sergio


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

dieterdreist


Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]>:
To put things in perspective, and just as  an example, we have about 186000 amenity=drinking_water, that is an antenna every 26 water taps...



not really astonishing, because everybody is interested in obtaining drinking water when away from home, for free is even better, but hardly anyone is interested in antennas, especially as you cannot typically use them (private facility). Can you show me a single public antenna, where I can drop by for adhoc use without following a lot of other formalities ;-) ?
 
Cheers,
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Jean-Marc Liotier
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On Wed, March 6, 2019 2:37 pm, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> I still fail to see _who could benefit_ from that fragmentary, sparse,
> information of unknown quality: I surely would not

I do not know either - but I'll let those who do have their fun and make
sure that it does not interfere with the common usage of navigational
cartography, hence my proposal of the straightforward basic attribute
chain and the optional radio stuff on top for those who enjoy it.

> (/but I'd probably be interested into knowing how high the antenna
> stands and approximately how big it is.../).

height=*, ele=* etc. -  yes, they apply too.

At some point we'll also have to draw the line between man_made=antenna
and man_made=mast (pretty sure there will be confusion for the typical
rural GSM BTS that are currently usually recorded as man_made=mast +
tower:type=communication - not very consistent but there are 56k
occurrences of that combination), and mention the cases where the
man_made=antenna may also be a building=* (that humongous radio-telescope
?)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Warin
In reply to this post by Jean-Marc Liotier
On 06/03/19 18:52, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 3/6/19 6:00 AM, Warin wrote:
>> So .. what is the best way to map them?
>
> My proposal would be a straightforward main tags chain to describe the
> physical landmark features - and then all the extra sauce specialists
> might want, but in a way that won't complicate the basics. So...
>
> man_made=antenna
> antenna=dish (or monopole/dipole/yagi/helical/phased_array ...)

Err No.

A 'dish' is a reflector to the antenna .. the antenna might be a dipole,
a horn etc.
While it is common to call an antenna a dish, tagging it as
'antenna=dish' means you cannot add 'antenna=dipole'.

Rather than antenna=dish it would be better to have dish=yes.
However this may complicate adding it to man_made=telescope,
telescope:type=radio as dish=yes does not mention antenna?

>
> and then radio aficionados may add as much of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use as
> they want (so we would amend this proposal to make it a complement to
> the physical landmark features main tags).

Yes.. that is the intention of the proposal - it is a sub tag to
something else (that is an antenna).
It does presently say it is a 'property key' and that should imply that
it describes another key?


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "satellit"

Joseph Eisenberg
It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish

I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
"tower" but that is currently an option that has been used
occasionally.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:construction%3Ddish

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12