[RFC] Feature Proposal – guy_wire

General talk Tagging general discussion
1

I propose the new value “guy_wire” for the key “man_made” to show guy wires for masts (man_made=mast) or crosses (man_made=cross) oder summit crosses (summit:cross=yes).

See here: Proposal:Guy wire - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Please discuss here an/or there: Proposal talk:Guy wire - OpenStreetMap Wiki

2

ID does have man_made=guy_wires (plural) as a preset value while the DB only shows 4 uses. The DB does show 1858 uses of the singular ‘guy_wire, so it seems kind of the choice albeit strangely not ID. When doing a mast in JOSM it asks for the construction type where guyes_lattice and guyed_tube are options. Anyway, I’ve update the Rai antenna here since the wires were tagged as cable, so now it’s 1862 :o)

edit: There is Tag:man_made=guy_wire - OpenStreetMap Wiki . It also mentions guy_wire_anchor, and that’s what was outlined at Rai, 4 big blocks.

1 Like
3

I want to proposed changing iD but i cant find guy_wires in id-tagging-schema. @SekeRob Can you guide me to guy_wires in iD?

4

Started typing guy in place of the cable value it had and then it showed three values including the mentioned anchor.

image
image900×705 116 KB

It even has an icon for the guy_wire_anchor

image
image641×462 85.8 KB

5

This is all purely generic functionality – the guy_wire and guy_wire_anchor values are pulled directly from Taginfo, as the fixed-size font reveals. Similarly, the icons at the anchor locations are generic icons for any unrecognized man_made value.

In other words, there is no defined preset (yet) for guy wires. But since the values already exist, are reasonably well used and documented, nothing stops anyone to suggest an addition to id-tagging-schema.

2 Likes
6

@SekeRob I understand your last post, but i dont understand the post before, where you mentioned the preset guy_wires (plural), anymore.

7

it is generic icon for man_made= without dedicated preset

why you think so?

1 Like
8

new? Is anything needed beyond existing Tag:man_made=guy_wire - OpenStreetMap Wiki ?

what is benefit of proposal?

Is omitting of trees intentional?

1 Like
9

@SekeRob The words “ID does have man_made=guy_wires (plural) as a preset value …” are from your first post here.

10

I did include trees now. The proposals (guy_wire and guy_wire_anchor9 were abandoned and i want to proceed it to voting so that the tags are “official”. Then i want them to become fully included in the map.

11

Can i already proceed to voting?

12

See Proposal process - OpenStreetMap Wiki

  • At least two weeks have passed since start of a RFC.

note that for established tags benefits here are slim if any, but if you want you can do the proposal process (I definitely spend some time on sillier things)

1 Like
13

Note that the main advantage of using proposal process is that you get feedback about what would be better names for tags, extra values, etc. geting “approved” status just mean that the dozen or so people didn’t find any glaring problems. If the tags are already agreed upon and in use (as seems to be case here), there is very little point in doing it.

There is no real “official” in OpenStreetMap – closest thing to “official” is when enough data consumers support it and when so many people are convinced to map that this feature reaches “de facto” status)

So the best you can do to make some feature closer to that imaginary “official” status is:

  • documenting it properly and in details in the wiki (e.g. defining how to map and how to not map clearly and unambiguously, with pictures for examples, linking to data consumers using it etc.), and
  • primarily by using them, i.e. adding that data to the map,
  • by extension, inciting your friends to map that data to OSM too,
  • suggesting to various data consumers you use to process that data (in a manner that is useful for you - with explanation to maintainer of each app how it is useful for you that their app process those tags).

… which map? There are hundreds of them (even on www.openstreetmap.org homepage alone there are 8 different maps available - just click on that layer button on the right)?

If you mean OSM database, any edit you make (regardless of proposal process above) is already fully included automatically.

If we’re talking about Carto (the default raster slippymap on openstreetmap.org website - the one you’ll get if you’ve never clicked on Layers button), I wish you good luck, you’ll need it. It is very hard to get things in there (personally, I would not even bother, but YMMV).

If you’re talking about OsmAnd or CoMaps (or any other mobile app), you’ll need to go their respective issue trackers and make your “enhancement request” pitch there.

The same work is needed if you mean some other slippymap, you need to contact their specific maintainers. So some interpretation of “to be fully included in the map” might mean you need to contact hundreds of different projects which use OSM data and make your pitch successfully to all of them. That is however not realistic goal (nor a good idea).

IOW, OSM is just a database of geospatial data. There are many different renderers (i.e. tools which create static or interactive “visual map” from that geospatial data).

Getting some specific feature rendered on all of them is however usually unwanted and counterproductive – the main purpose of a map is actually to remove as much stuff as possible from the map to make it easily readable, while leaving in only things that are really required for its specific purpose.

Different maps have different requirements and use cases (e.g. guy wires might not be so want on map oriented on cycling infrastructure, but might be quite interesting on one oriented on electrical infrastructure).

TL;DR: there are no “offical” tags in OSM, and there is no “fully included” features in OSM maps (generally speaking).
We might be able to better help if you detailed your use case, i.e. explained what you wish to be able to, but cannot do currently (or can do, but only sub-optimally).

2 Likes