Proposal talk:Gazex

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Another example

salü Florien, i mapped that here, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369298390 - mostly for the visuals, unfortunately, pipeline conflicts with avalanche_protection, as both are in man_made namespace --Hungerburg (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Overflorian (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Hi Hungerburg, that is wonderfull! Thanks for this mapping, that is exacly what I am looking for.


  • Regarding the building, I believe we could add the following tags:
    • building=service
    • access=no
    • man_made=monitoring_station
    • monitoring:weather=yes
    • weather:thermometer=yes
    • weather:anemometer=yes
    • monitoring:seismic_activity=yes
    • remotely_controllable=yes (as we don't know if it's by radio or GSM (depending on the choice of the resort)
    • operator=[name of the ski resort]

The problem with man_made=monitoring_station is that I would also add man_made=storage_tank (with content=propane;oxygen) to the building but they are not compatible on another. Maybe we can use the man_made=storage_tank tag over a single node?

Here's an example of my proposal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102777351

added a few in this changeset a while back https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96552355 SK53 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Overflorian (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Hi, thanks for this other example. I have the same question than before: why would you use "gasex" instead of "gazex" with a "Z"? It seems to me that the name of the technologie comes with a "Z" cf. http://www.tas.fr/en/products/18-produits-avalanches/535-gazex-gazflex-en
Also I think you should also map the building (that we can see on the aerial imagery just West of this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2587291667) and the whole system with the gas pipelines. Does my proposal sounds good to you?
With no reply since 1 year, I switch this topic as resolved. --Overflorian (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

man_made

Hello there, thank you for notifying me.

I came to this, because I mapped some snowbridges and found the avalanche_protection overview page. I created a page for the man_made=avalanche_protection tag, because man_made seemed to be the best overarching term, to gather the different types of avalanche protection systems in the wild, which includes the gasex. In the mean time, I am not so sure any more. I noticed, when looking at my osmose stats :) A feature that has two man_made tags on it will be reported as an error or warning. This is no problem with snowbridges, man_made and fence are considered no problem. It is a problem though with gasex pipelines, when both man_made=avalanche_protection and man_made=pipeline collide. It will be just the same with monitoring_station and storage_tank.

If I understand fully, the proposal shall only be for the "avalanche_protection=*" tag. This can be applied to fences, pipelines, containers and such. That would be great, as above conflicts will not arise. This would be less systematic, an add-on key for different base tags. Actually, what is on the article without the man_made base. But then, how to link the different apparatuses, constructions, etc. to one another?

This key might also work for Proposed_features/avalanche_dam - which states, that it is approved, but has no other content, nor a vote section.

It seems that this proposal is 10 years old with no vote approving it. I think we should just ignore it.
Resolved: --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: Here in Austria it is called Gasex, because the explosive here is called Gas. The proposed value might be better the tradename, so gazex then, French spelling.

OK, dully noted, thanks --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

PPS: The gasex container on Kuhmesser is not in the network of monitoring_stations (https://www.lawis.at/station/ does not show it). The gasex system is a hermit, only of private use; So one might just drop the monitoring station from the container and not much would be lost?

I don't think we need a new tag or change anything for that. But, on another side, it could be that we create a dedicated tag for adding the information that a monitoring station is part of a monitoring network. I think it should be for the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmonitoring_station and not in my proposal. --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: --Overflorian (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty to map

Hi Florian ! First, there is no doubt for me that it's an interesting thing to map (and to render on specialise ski map), as I wanted to create a draft on it ! I mapped one here : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1043518243 But it's difficult (at least for me) to map more than the overground pipeline. And even to map it as a line is sometimes too much detail for, I would made juste a node. For the underground pipeline, the difficulty I see is that you have no idea of where the pipeline is in reality. You can assume that it goes straight from the control station to the overgrund pipeline, but you can't know without official document of the installation. So why mapping it ? Babouche Verte (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I had a look with the satellite imagery arround your example and could not find any other Gazex nore the storage building. I guess that without a proper check-up on site, there is no way to improve this mapping. My tipsː I hike there during summer, that's much more simple to spotǃ
You mention the fact that we don't know where the underground pipe is located. I would say that it does not matter and that we just need to connect the storage to the overground pipe. I think it's important for the possibility of routing (yes, it does exist for gaz tooǃ). And, later, if you can spot the pipes (during winter, for example), you can precise the outline of the pipe.
You also suggest to create a node instead of a way for the pipe. I don't think it's a good idea because the existing model already stated this (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline).
Does that answer all your questions? Regards --Overflorian (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm suggesting to have the possibility to map a gazex with just a node, and only one tag : avalanche_protection=gazex. Mapping pipeline and so is micromapping for me. It's usefull, but I'm afraid some people won't map it at all, because too difficult/long. For exemple, it won't be possible to map gazex with OsmAnd without creating a note and finishing with JOSM.
I'm not very happy with mapping things "just for the (gas) routing". IMHO if we don't know, we don't map.But maybe it's already the case with some underground pipeline ? (I never mapped any). Babouche Verte (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Gazex is a trademark

Is it a probleme to use a trademark in a tag ? For me it's not an issue, but I have no idea if it can legally be an issue. Have you ever takled with Gazex company ? Babouche Verte (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concern but, on my side, I don't see any reason why not using it. If you find better, I'm really open to proposals. --Overflorian (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This has the added benefit of avoiding the avalanche_protection=gazex vs avalanche_protection=gasex spelling confusion. Something as avalanche_protection=gas_explosion, or avalanche_protection=exploding_gas_pipe lulz. --- Kovposch (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
In my legal understanding, it is not against the rules, to call a Gazex system a Gazex system; The only problem that can arise, if I map a system, that is made by a competitor, and called it gazex. Then the holder of the trademark can demand, that I stop that. Indeed, the trademark holder must do so to prevent dilution, otherwise they might loose the trademark. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
A work around the Trademark obection might be, to propose gasex - as the exlosive, in conditions supporting human life, is in the gaseous phase, and not in the liquid or solid phase, and add a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Manufacturer_and_Model Manufacturer tag to the system (If known).--Hungerburg (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Genericized trademark is acceptable, eg surface=tartan. Although surface=artificial_turf is used, not surface=astroturf. Gasex is basically gas-explosion. --- Kovposch (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There is only a Wikipedia Article in German, not French, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawinenausl%C3%B6sung_durch_Gasgemischz%C3%BCndung. Gasex is also trademarked. There a are also several manufaturers. So, I'd say avalanche_protection=gas_ignition is most close to how the procedure operates. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Recently I mapped another gasex system, of course with native spelling - Looks like I am not the only one - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=avalanche_protection&value=gasex#overview - They are not all by me ;) I repeat, avalanche_protection=gas_ignition might overcome this and not be loaded with a trademark. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_talk:Gazex&oldid=2542151"