Adjust rendering of man_made=mast and communications_tower based on height #3414
Comments
|
as your suggestion is to retag things and or redefine tags you should first get this done or at least start a discussion about it to see what is the opinion of others, then the rendering can be adjusted to the new situation.
|
To be honest I'd quite like the rendering adjusted to the current situation before going any further - which would be to not render this tag in the first place! It is poorly defined - given it is essentially a duplicate of man_made=tower + tower:type=communication + height>100 - and inconsistently tagged as shown in the OP. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about adding the tag at such prominence on the map and it only has 4k uses compared to towers + masts with 239k + 75k. If I was to retag things, then I'd suggest that most of these objects would no longer be tagged as man_made=communications_tower - at that point I don't think it would make sense to render it either. |
|
It was my understanding that this is special kind of towers, but since it was the whole set of towers, it was not discussed more clearly. I'm happy with tuning it now, however definition was OK for me and I also like to see the discussion if you think it's wrong or there is some confusion. |
|
2018-09-24 14:38 GMT+02:00 Michael Booth <[email protected]>:
It is poorly defined - given it is essentially a duplicate of
man_made=tower + tower:type=communication + height>100
this is a tagging discussion
- and inconsistently tagged as shown in the OP. There doesn't seem to have
been any discussion about adding the tag, which only has 4k uses compared
to towers + masts with 239k + 75k.
4k usage is not few for a tag that describes big television towers. If most
of these are corresponding to the wiki description, I would not see a point
where it could be critizized. Inconsistent application is generally
something to be worried about. If these are singular problems, they should
be retagged, if it is a significant systematic problem, something more has
to be done (e.g. remove support here).
|
The point I am making is that most of these do not correspond to the wiki description. None of the examples in the OP are "big television towers" and I doubt many (if any) of the ~240 examples in the UK are either. If I was proposing to render this for the first time today, it would rightly be scrutinised and probably rejected! Especially as CARTOGRAPHY.md says one of the purposes of the style is it "helps to prevent unfavorable fragmentation of tag use.". |
A quick check of ones near me (UK) seems about 50/50 used "correctly" and misused. In many cases it's possible to tell based on the changeset comments (e.g. "cell phone tower" is likely wrong) or other tags ("operator=Arqiva" is likely correct). Since understanding the distinction I've always tried to use the tag "correctly"; it seems a shame to not render these objects at all based on misuse elsewhere. It shouldn't take UK mappers long to double-check the tagging of 240 items; presumably that same logic can be applied to other OSM communities worldwide. |
|
sent from a phone
On 24. Sep 2018, at 21:00, SomeoneElseOSM ***@***.***> wrote:
A quick check of ones near me (UK) seems about 50/50 used "correctly" and misused. In many cases it's possible to tell based on the changeset comments (e.g. "cell phone tower" is likely wrong) or other tags ("operator=Arqiva" is likely correct).
I would also expect these to be mostly fixable by remote (for significant towers you will usually find a lot of material online, the shadow in aerial imagery can also be useful to confirm huge structures).
|
|
Does anybody plan to do tagging corrections? I think this is preferred option and I would be happy with this too. |
|
BTW: another example of wildly misused tag is monument instead of memorials, it would be good to make some retagging action too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4861514021
|
|
There are indeed many wrongly tagged communications_tower. But you have to ask why? I found very old entries from a time when there was no wiki page. It may also be due to the editors who do not support it. In JOSM only tower is considered. Mast and communications_tower are missing. I once wrote a ticket but it was closed. Alternatively, you can use a preset Communication Towers. |
|
@SomeoneElseOSM - had a look in your area and it seems that most have been added/changed recently, including this one (which has the operator tag) that should really be retagged as a 25m tower with tower:type=communication instead: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3340470839/history I've found small mobile phone "masts" and towers, large lattice towers and very tall guyed masts tagged as communications_tower. But none of the ones I've seen in the UK look like the example in the wiki of the tall concrete tower with an observation deck, of the style found in Berlin. Mobile phone "masts" are not big enough and a 351m guyed tubular mast or a 219m lattice tower are better tagged as a mast and tower - so there's not much left to tag as man_made=communications_tower! @kocio-pl I'm going to post on the mailing list about the tagging. But for osm-carto, at the very least you must consider whether communications_tower should be rendered so prominently at z13, without at least checking for a height tag like you do for mast or tower. My other request in the OP was to "render masts from z13, with similar height logic as towers" - should I create a new issue for that? Because it would be a shame if correctly tagged masts weren't rendered at z13/14, but towers are. @geozeisig most of them are from Potlach2 where it is a preset, don't know when that was added though. Fortunately iD and JOSM don't have it as a preset as more people would no doubt be (mis)using it! Also, the number of communication_towers is not increasing according to the history graph, which is good: http://taghistory.raifer.tech/ Hopefully we can get all parts of the puzzle - rendering, tagging, wiki, editors - sorted. |
|
If this will be the only outcome (so it's not effectively a meta-issue), I don't think we need another ticker, just the title change to make it clear and somebody to make the code. I think your proposition about height is sane, we just need to discuss details. |
boothym
changed the title
|
Ok, I've changed the title. Currently man_made=tower + tower:type=communication is always rendered at z17, and also at: openstreetmap-carto/amenity-points.mss Line 419 in d11242d This should be copied for man_made=mast as that is currently rendered from z18, and at height>20, 40 and 80 for z17, 16 and 15. For man_made=communications_tower I would suggest the same, although by definition there shouldn't be any tagged with height <100. |
|
Would you like to make this code? |
|
I could by just copying the tower code, but as I don't have a way to test the rendering I'd rather someone else did it. |
@boothym I'd say that Radio City Tower in Liverpool fits the man_made=communications_tower definition, although currently it's just tagged as building=tower. The top of the tower houses the radio studios and broadcasting suites, with DAB transmission aerials on the very top. Originally it was opened as an observation tower, although radio is now the primary use. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204479301 |
|
@lakedistrictOSM thanks for that, I suppose the BT tower in Birmingham is another example. Looks similar to the TV tower in Berlin which seems to the basis for the man_made=communications_tower tag. However as you mention a building tag, and looking at the highest structures in Germany the top 6 have a building plus their man_made tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm_Berlin - communications_tower So perhaps simply adding a building tag to man_made=tower + tower:type=communication + height would make the communications_tower tag redundant? |
Towers aren't buildings because they aren't built for living, but for another purpose. In my opinion, adding a building tag to man_made=tower is mistagging for the renderer (just as adding a building tag to historic=ship or man_made=storage_tank). |
|
sent from a phone
On 8. Oct 2018, at 19:21, SelfishSeahorse ***@***.***> wrote:
Towers aren't buildings because they aren't built for living, but for another purpose
towers are typically a good fit for the building tag as well. There is no requirement for „building“ to be built for living.
|
With this definition you could delete million garages, huts, sheds, greenhouses, industrial and office buildings |
|
With this definition you could delete million garages, huts, sheds,
greenhouses, industrial and office buildings
You are right, my definition doesn't make sense. I rather meant staying or
being accessible than dwelling (and being closed). After rethinking, i
agree that towers that are accessible can be called buildings -- but for
example not lattice towers.
|
|
I can do test renderings for the masts, if we can decide on the right levels. I think it might make sense for masts to continue to render 1 zoom level later than towers, because they are less visually prominent. Man_made chimney also renders about 1 zoom level later than towers, and never sooner than z16 How about for masts: Should we also render man_made chimney at z15 for height >100, perhaps? |
|
@kocio-pl - I just read through the discussions about rendering towers, #3158 and #2671, but I didn't see a clear discussion of the initial zoom levels and heights for towers vs masts vs chimneys. Perhaps I missed it? Is there a reason that towers are rendered as early as z13 but masts only at z15? Can we have them all render at z14 as the earliest, or should towers still render at z13? I would also consider #1017 rendering wind turbines based on height I've already made the code, should I post some test renderings? |
|
Most probably I focused on towers and did not test masts and chimneys, I just found sane defaults for some testing places, so they don't dominate the area. Both are less solid and more popular than towers, so I made them less prominent. If you have something more detailed, you can post it of course. I was thinking about showing some huge monuments earlier, so I'm happy to hear that. |
|
Ok, great!
Since we are no longer rendering building outlines on z13, I will also test
removing the tower rendering and communications_tower from z13 to be
consistent.
…On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:44 AM kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote:
Most probably I focused on towers and did not test masts and chimneys, I
just found sane defaults for some testing places, so they don't dominate
the area. Both are less solid and more popular than towers, so I made them
less prominent.
If you have something more detailed, you can post it of course. I was
thinking about showing some huge monuments earlier, so I'm happy to hear
that.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3414 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshDsKLnzM8SKl5IWvAKAdH8J0FiLIks5uuEXNgaJpZM4W2eKC>
.
|
|
I'd like to start rending masts, towers, communication_tower and radio telescopes from z14 at >100m, z15 at >50 meters. Examples: Honolulu, Hawaii z13 before Zwedru, Liberia Dover, England Southwest of Dover Washington DC |
|
@jeisenbe, do you mind if I ask what the utility of rendering them based on height is exactly? It seems like it would just add extra, unnecessary cognitive load to people who are mapping that would expect things to show up at a certain level when they look to see if the poi needs to mapped or not. Then when they reach that zoom level and the item isn't there they won't know if its because its not mapped or just because they have to zoom in further because its a "small" tower. So, in my opinion height is kind of useless as a rendering variable for things like that, where there should be some kind of standard. Not to mention, its completely useless as a bases for rendering, because know one would know what the height is in the first place. So, they might not even make the connection that the tower isn't showing up for that reason in the first place. Memorizing what zoom level everything is at is hard enough already. I don't have a problem with not showing something if its small, like with wind turbines, but I think I'm against this type of rendering because its just pointlessly over complicates things. Unless someone has a good argument for why it doesn't. |
|
These things are already rendered based on height. I am simply adjusting
the rules to be more consistent.
However, I do think it would make sense to render tall monuments and
obelisks earlier, again to be consistent with the rules for towers and
masts.
We render large areas earlier, based on waypixels (height x width). Tall
objects are visible over a large area due to their height, so it makes
sense to render them earlier as well, but not too early.
I believe z14 is reasonable for a 120m tower or crane; that’s 400 feet or
about 40 floors for an office building, so these things are all
“skyscraper” height.
But there are 6 meter and 12 meter cranes and cell phone masts, and these
should not be rendered sooner than z17
…On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:22 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
@jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe>, do you mind if I ask what the
utility of rendering them based on height is exactly? It seems like it
would just add extra, unnecessary cognitive load to people who are mapping
that would expect things to show up at a certain level when they look to
see if the poi needs to mapped or not. Then when they reach that zoom level
and the item isn't there they won't know if its because its not mapped or
just because they have to zoom in further because its a "small" tower.
So, in my opinion height is kind of useless as a rendering variable for
things like that, where there should be some kind of standard. Not to
mention, its completely useless as a bases for rendering, because know one
would know what the height is in the first place. So, they might not even
make the connection that the tower isn't showing up for that reason in the
first place.
Memorizing what zoom level everything is at is hard enough already. I
don't have a problem with not showing something if its small, like with
wind turbines, but I think I'm against this type of rendering because its
just pointlessly over complicates things. Unless someone has a good
argument for why it doesn't.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3414 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshMw_TAFdcYQbCPcAo4zv7igSoaUPks5uuoFSgaJpZM4W2eKC>
.
|
|
I agree that area and height should be rendered for thing that are mapped as large ways. A wider area thing is obviously different then a less wider one and should rendered at different zoom levels. Id also agree with about uber tall towers versus smaller cell towers. Except cell towers are tagged as such and their rendering could level just be based on that. Not on the fact that they are a part of the higher category of "towers" and happen to have a height tag. Height is to arbitrary in those situations, they all look like dots on a satellite map anyway, and know one would understand the rendering inconsistency because its not stated anywhere. If anything, they might consider it a bug. Plus, as I said before, is someone just suppose to zoom around wildly until they find the correct zoom level for the tower they want to add to see if its there or not? What about things like multi story buildings? Should they be rendered at different zoom levels because they have different stories? or should we render stairs differently based on how many individual stairs there are? I don't why see there should be an exception here. Unless it has an actual benefit to mappers. What actual real world benefit does it provide? We have been trying to clean up zoom levels. Not make them more cluttered or complicated. Just saying it should be done in this case because its done in others isn't a good reason. |
|
Does anyone have comments on the test renderings above? #3414 (comment) I believe it would work to have z14 as the initial zoom level for the tallest towers and masts. I would also adjust radio telescopes to render no sooner than z14, and add sooner rendering for tall monuments and obelisks. Is >100m at z14 the best option?
Another consideration is that z14 is where power line towers are first rendered, though with a very small square symbol. At z15 power=tower have a slightly larger square icon, though still much smaller than the pictographs used for masts, monuments etc. |
|
@jeisenbe sorry for the delayed response, just catching up with the comments here and on the mailing list. 😊 Not sure whether to post on the PR or here. Am I right in saying you've gone for the following? IMO having nothing at z13 is a mistake. At the moment very tall towers are rendered at z13 (see image below) - that needs be applied to masts as well. I have no problem with making the height test more strict, for example 200-250m. These are some of the world's tallest structures so they should be more prominent, and there's not a problem with tall towers rendering at z13 just now. While I don't like the man_made=communications_tower tag - this could also be shown at z13, if it had a suitable height tag. And I also think putting towers without height down to z18 is a mistake - z17 seems to be working fine at the moment. You don't want them to be too small on the map just because they don't have a height tag. @Adamant36 I don't understand this comment:
A tower with no height tagged currently gets rendered at z17, so people would need to zoom in at the moment anyway. There's lots of things that people have to zoom in to see. Better surely to render the tallest masts or towers at z13 so that people will see them. For example, here's the tallest tower in the UK (330m) - if someone decides to go and map it, they will notice it! |
|
Michael, have you seen PR #3536 ?
I’ve shown rendering examples of the planned changes and given an
explanation for them.
Please comment there, if you have a chance to review the changes. Link:
#3536
…On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:28 AM Michael Booth ***@***.***> wrote:
@jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe> sorry for the delayed response,
just catching up with the comments here and on the mailing list. 😊 Not
sure whether to post on the PR or here.
Am I right in saying you've gone for the following?
nothing at zoom 13
[zoom >= 14][height > 160], (communications_tower here, not dependant on height)
[zoom >= 15][height > 80],
[zoom >= 16][height > 40],
[zoom >= 17][height > 20] (towers only?)
[zoom >= 18] (both)
IMO having nothing at z13 is a mistake. At the moment very tall towers are
rendered at z13 (see image below) - that needs be applied to masts as well.
I have no problem with making the height test more strict, for example
200-250m. These are some of the world's tallest structures so they should
be more prominent, and there's not a problem with tall towers rendering at
z13 just now.
While I don't like the man_made=communications_tower tag - this could also
be shown at z13, if it had a suitable height tag.
And I also think putting towers without height down to z18 is a mistake -
z17 seems to be working fine at the moment. You don't want them to be too
small on the map just because they don't have a height tag.
@Adamant36 <https://github.com/Adamant36> I don't understand this comment:
Plus, as I said before, is someone just suppose to zoom around wildly
until they find the correct zoom level for the tower they want to add to
see if its there or not?
A tower with no height tagged currently gets rendered at z17, so people
would need to zoom in at the moment anyway. There's lots of things that
people have to zoom in to see.
Better surely to render the tallest masts or towers at z13 so that people
will see them. For example, here's the tallest tower in the UK (330m) - if
someone decides to go and map it, they will notice it!
[image: emly]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16965772/50184513-4181e200-030d-11e9-894c-43129582d047.JPG>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3414 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshB_FasSOeIWVOLQf87js7QPGIunmks5u6WwngaJpZM4W2eKC>
.
|
|
@boothym, my point was that five different zoom levels for rendering a single object based an obscure variable like height of the object isn't the most intuitive thing for most people or something they would probably even consider when look at the map to see if something is there or not. For instance, most people don't know or care that their local cell tower is 80ft and not 79 feet. If they were looking for the objects on the map, they might zoom into z15, see a tower there, wrongly assume all towers are rendered at that zoom level, then think a tower doesn't exist somewhere else because its displayed at z16 instead. Since again, height is a useless distinction to most people, for most people. Unless your talking about the difference between the Eiffel Tower and a local cell tower, but that's more about its cultural significance then how tall it is. But by doing it this way your essentially put all towers, even meaningless ones on the same importance level as the Eiffel Tower, which they aren't, simply because the they are the same height. Maybe it would be different if there was only like two height variables. 5 is out of the range of usefulness or meaning though. Especially considering there's map legend to explain it and the person would have to inspect every object to know that's the variable being used, because again its just not intuitive. Yes there's lots of other things people need to zoom in to see, but what aboutisms don't really work good in a case like this where your talking about hundreds of different objects with different properties and rendering priorities. Cool freeways are rendered at a different zoom level then residential roads, but they are different objects and serve different purposes on the road way. freeways aren't rendered 5 different ways based on their road width though (which I think is a bad idea). All of them are rendered the same irrespective of how wide they are. So its not even comparable. If they where then it might be. Compare five different rendering heights for the same object based on an obscure variable that most people don't associate with the object in the first place to the aim of the cartography file.
Instead, I suggest they be rendered based on a few zoom levels, using another tag that would actually separate them based on something meaningful like if they have the historic tag or not. Doing it by height though is pigeon holing significant objects into being rendered the same as none significant ones. Especially for things like towers where they are all tall. Plus, I still have yet to hear a good rational as to what exact benefit rendering based on height for a lot of these things is even a good idea. Except for @jeisenbe saying a lot of vague statements like "Well, because other objects use it" which really isn't a valid reason or a good rational for doing anything. The important thing is why its a good rendering metric in this case. Which it clearly isn't. Especially considering there are better ones. There's a vast array of purposes for towers. So its not like obelisks where they are all for the same reason and all have significance. So height can be used for them, because its not insinuating a false connection to importance. |
|
As an alternative you could render them based on tower:type and leave it at that. That would be way less arbitrary, would incur-age adding the tag, and would not render insignificant ones at the same level as significant ones. The vast majority are communication towers, or other similar tower types, where height doesn't even matter. Only a small minority are like the Eiffel Tower. So I don't know why height even needs to inter into the equation. Again, its a completely irrelevant variable, that means your screwing yourself out of being able to use a better one like type. |
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower
It's rendered from z13, which is how I noticed these in the first place - they are quite prominent compared to other masts/towers. You can see five of them in this location:
However as you can see, none of these are "huge towers" as defined by the wiki:
And having looked at overpass-turbo I'm guessing most of the 4,000 objects in OSM are incorrectly tagged as well - varying from small mobile (cell) sites, to towers <100m and tall masts.
To me it seems like a redundant tag to render - one solely used for huge towers - when OSM-carto already renders masts and towers at different zoom levels according to their height.
Many of these communications_tower objects are already tagged with their height, so there'd be no difference if they were retagged as a tower.
To further show how redundant this tag is:
yet both are still rendered from z13.
Mast rendering at z13/14
Also related to this is the lack of rendering of tall masts at z13. For examples, the tallest structure in the UK at 350m is only rendered from z15: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2512753621
This is even more noticeable around the town of Dover. There is a 111m tower rendered to the east, a smaller communications_tower (which looks like this: https://goo.gl/maps/MBXpcRBKTvK2) rendered to the north east - but the 243m mast does not appear at z14! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/866619623#map=14/51.1316/1.3002
So my proposals are:
P.S. - I can't find much discussion about rendering this tag when searching this repo, so might be worth reviewing how it was implemented in the first place.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: