Proposal talk:Radio communication

Do you start by importing DAFIF or is that too out-of-date? Ojw 11:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no import plan for now. I would just like to have this kind of tag. Wagner51 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to use the string "vor_dme" when everyone out there uses "VOR/DME" - OSM does not assign special meaning to slashes so I suggest using "vor/dme" or "VOR/DME". --Frederik Ramm 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat disagree. While OSM database itself may not, it is impossible to pass a search string with "/" in it correctly to the parser, if you'd like to find all/some objects with i.e. "vor/dme". As "/" has to appear in URLs of GET requests and you'll only see an error, even when using the encoded form "%2F". The REST based search interface design could be improved in the future, but I see very little resources for that. So it would indeed be clever to withstand any potential use of such strings for now. --Hasienda 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago i imported all the italian VOR beacon using man_made=beacon (see [1]) --EdoM (lets talk about it) 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could there maybe a little more ambitioned explanation in the proposal WHY we should have this tag ? Do you simply wanna "have" it, or is it useful for ... well, what? --Bernd V. 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well both of them :o) It would be useful for pilots for example. They could get the list of all nav aids by querying the database, or they could make aeronautical maps. Wagner51 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the existing man_made:beacon both suitable and more clear than "radio_communication"? There are at least 10 kinds of "radio communication" going on within 50 meters of me everywhere i go... --Pouletic 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary tagging

Frequency should not be limited to MHz, NDB's operate between 190 kHz and 1750 kHz, and LORAN operates from 90 to 110 kHz. Þórir Már 09:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

change to "radio_communication"

I would recommend changing it to k="man_made" v="radio_communication"

As the radio actually 'communicates' to the different devices. .. devices which can be used for navigation as a resault. You can also get a GPS location from a regular cell phone. ... if the device is being used to track the progress of its location comminicating it's coordinates with land recievers and satalite recievers.

I am also thinking about using "building=tower" together with type=radio_communication"

i also like "building=antenna" together with "type=radio"

re: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Buildings_and_structures

also, a side discussion how can i tag radio_telescope (used for astronomy)?? --acrosscanadatrails 10:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

or building from what we have already man_made=tower & man_made=water_tower

to man_made=radio_tower??

---

Well, navaids are not always buildings, nor always towers...
Example of NDB : [2]
Example of VOR/DME : [3]
Example of ILS : [4]
Wagner51 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Ok, agreed a 'building' is generally something that a human and go inside and work. Can we agree that instead of 'radio_navigation' we use 'radio_communication' and then have 'type=aeronotics"? I just would like the icon to be also used for other types of communication. I would think man_made=antenna could work too? --acrosscanadatrails 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. But type=aeronautics instead of type=aeronotics ;o) So we would not set the original "types" I proposed (type=vor_dme...)? And what about the sub-tags "frequency", "mag_declination" and "code"? Wagner51 12:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much typing and opportunities for error

I think this tag is a great idea, just that the more syllables in the tag, the more the chance of error when typing it. "navaid=vor" would mean hardly any errors and quick entry, while "man_made=radio_communication;type=aeronautics;sub_type=vor" just invites errors even if anyone can be bothered typing so much to enter a navaid. Ojw 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For GSM/cellular antennas, too?

Hi, I'm thinking of tagging cellular antennas but there seem to be no other tag for my idea. Will it be possible to use radio communication for GSM/UMTS/... antennas? Well difficult to analyse the antenna config but it would be usefull for statistics, avoid EMC and so on and so on...

This topic is comparable to tagging wifi - reception. .. because its so widely used... and (my cell & laptop) is smart enough to automatically know what to look for. IMO tagging the physical feature as a 'tower' then adding sub:types, would be better. Making this tag a 'sub:tag" so things like what VHF channel to use (on the water) or in the air would be shown as a value for the tower tag. eg. The CN Tower (toronto) is used for many types of communication.

--acrosscanadatrails 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

man_made=radio_tower?

Perhaps radio_tower would further define the purpose of the tag. The icon DOES show a 'tower' and DOES indicate communication with the partial rings. .. and describing the object as 'a radio tower' with 'communication' being implied. Would this be even more accurate than 'communication tower' right? --acrosscanadatrails 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)