Proposal:Mimics
The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.
See on Template:Archived proposal how one may mark older proposal version to provide easy link for viewing archived content. (quick hint: {{Archived proposal|archive_id=}})
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal Proposed features/Mimics is located at Key:mimics |
| mimics | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | erictheise |
| Tagging: | mimics=* |
| Statistics: |
|
| RFC start: | 2019-11-15 |
| Vote start: | 2019-11-29 |
| Vote end: | 2019-12-13 |
Proposal
Since 1992 cellphone masts and towers have been disguised as trees, cacti, and other features of the natural and built world. One suggested practice for tagging this infrastructure is to use man_made=tower or man_made=mast with tower:type=communication in combination with tower:construction=concealed.
There are two unfortunate consequences of this practice. It does not provide a mechanism for recording what the mast or tower is disguised as. Further, it overloads tower:construction with a value that is not even accurate; as Paul Allen points out on the tagging list, a cellphone tower recognizable as a fake pine tree is hardly concealed even if the communications technology is to some degree. tower:construction=concealed remains applicable for true "stealth sites".
I propose to introduce the key mimics to remedy the first consequence. I propose to mark the practice of using tower:construction=concealed when the mimics tag is applied as deprecated.
Rationale
These camouflaged masts and towers are of interest to photographers, conceptual artists, postmodern philosophers, hobbyists, and others who study the built environment. Their existence has been documented in numerous online photo galleries ranging from providers of these structures, e.g., the portfolio of Cell Trees, Inc., to accomplished photographers such as Robert Voit and his New Trees project.
Examples
In 2013 it was estimated that there were between 1,000 and 2,000 such structures in the United States. Sadly, OSM does not currently capture this information. According to taginfo there are only 116 occurrences of
tower:construction=concealed in OpenStreetMap. Here is an example where what the tower mimics is included in the note field, from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/567065909 .
In this case note=* would be simply be replaced with mimics=pine.
I have no connection with Cell Trees, Inc., but a list of suggested values might use their product offerings as a jumping off point – broadleaves, eucalyptus, saguaro, palm, pine, "water tower" – with the more generic values cactus and tree allowed, all to be extended as other real world examples surface.
Tagging
This proposal covers the use of mimics with either of man_made=tower or man_made=mast and tower:type=communication. The documented use of tower:construction=concealed when a mast or tower is tagged with mimics would be deprecated.
It seems mimics might be useful in other contexts but that is beyond the scope of this proposal.
Applies to
Masts are restricted to nodes. Towers may be nodes or areas.
Rendering
I don't believe distinctions afforded by mimics need to appear in standard OpenStreetMap renderings.
Features/Pages affected
External discussions
A brief exchange on the tagging list.
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support proposal. |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Erictheise (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Seems to not cause any problems and for something than can be mapped in OSM --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I like the tag, could be useful for different context/things as well (it’s a bit sad this has a very narrow focus and a concise generic description would have been welcomed, maybe this can evolve)—Dieterdreist (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I was always searching how to map this. Thanks for the proposal! --Sommerluk (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I approve of this tag in general, however shouldn't the key be singular: mimicinstead ofmimics? On taginfo, the first 100 of the most popular keys are singular unless it is refering to building units/flats. --Bobwz (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)- @Bobwz: "Mimics" is the singular third-person form of "to mimic". "Mimic" sounds awkward to me as a command. It's rare for a verb to be used as a key, but I can't think of a more intuitive noun alternative. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Carleenem (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Great one, thank you. It may be nice to document individual values with pictures in the future as to allow not knowledgable people to go on ground and use the tag Fanfouer (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. To make this tag more useful for end users, the values listed unter Examples should have been proposed as official values. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jonahadkins (talk)
- I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Fizzie41 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AgusQui (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Please do make sure to add a list of clearly defined values once this proposal is approved. Rendering apps will need consistent data if this proposal is to be worth it. LeifRasmussen (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Doublah (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Traveller195 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I find these features fascinating in the physical world, and I look forward to the ability to map them in OSM --Alan (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --BrettCamper (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --JesseCrocker (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --JasonFerrier (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Though, contrary to the "Rendering" section, I would contend that mimics=* would be useful to 3D renderers that need to render these towers realistically rather than symbolically. For that reason, I agree with SelfishSeahorse and LeifRasmussen that there should be a list of suggested values while still allowing for additional user-defined values. It would be beneficial for mappers to use tags like not:natural=tree to prevent mappers working off poor imagery from changing the main tags to something inaccurate. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Carleenem (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 21 votes for, 0 votes against and 3 abstentions.