Talk:Tag:man made=monitoring station

Merge with measurement station?

Except the given name (monitoring instead of measurement) I don't see much difference between this proposal and measurement_station. -- Malenki 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the 2 should be merge, I've emailed the author of the other page but haven't received a reply back yet, this tag evolved in the following way: Originally I had man_made=gps_receiver which people on the tagging list didn't agree with then it became man_made=gps_monitoring_station, however some of the gps monitoring stations I imported also monitored glonass signals and so I dropped the gps_ bit and just had man_made=monitoring_station -- Delta foxtrot2 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice evolution. :) With "gps_reciever" I couldn't have imagined what else that should be than the devices I carry. -- Malenki 08:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

gps monitoring stations don't move :) There is about 421 locations world wide monitoring GPS signals for a variety of reasons, 116 also monitor GLONASS signals... -- Delta foxtrot2 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW: what is the difference between "to monitor" and "to measure"? Maybe you as native speaker can explain that so to better decide if to keep measurement or monitor. -- Malenki 08:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look on the man_made=measuring_station the air quality monitor location is refered to as a monitoring station, monitoring are often used to warn of excessive levels, not just record levels, however both terms are more or less interchangeable -- Delta foxtrot2 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i haven't answered yet. I didn't know what i should write. Sorry. I also think the 2 should be merge. I think this should be done fast, there are some imports in preparation which would use measurement_station --grossing 12:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We have all the time in the world, it's trivial to use the XAPI method to download thousands if not hundred of thousands of nodes and then using JOSM to update things -- Delta foxtrot2 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Details for merging

• Name: As Delta foxtrot2 sais its not much of a difference if monitoring or measurement is used. Each tag won't match all of the objects to describe exactly. That won't be that bad since this can be described with the secondary tagging. If recording is manually (if at all) and display is analog the bets it is only measurement will be good :)

• Proposal: the result of the merge should remain a proposal since its likely that some more users would like to discuss stuff before agreeing to the tag.

• sub-/secondary tagging: imo the version measurement=[type] looks better than measurement:[type]=yes/no. Opinions?

• the tag to abandon should be redirected to the tag to keep

(-- Malenki 12:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

A single station might measure multiple types, for example various kinds of airborne particles emitted by vehicles. Alv 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A single key may contain multiple values as shown in Proposed_features/measurement_station#Secondary_tagging. Its just the liking of the users which kind of tag to prefer. -- Malenki 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As per my explaination above as to how I came to the name, when I was importing GPS monitoring locations some of these also monitor GLONASS signals as well, so monitor:gps=yes and monitor:glonass=yes is better to me than trying to jam multiple values into a single key pair, eg monitor=gps;glonass -- Delta foxtrot2 23:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Monitoring Station Icon

See: issues/2516

Surface Water Quality is missing

Currently there is an inconsistency in the tagging scheme between surface water and groundwater. For monitoring:groundwater we have three values yes, quality and level. For surface water the quality value is missing.

Difference between recording:{automatic,remote}=yes

The wiki page defines

• recording=yes/no
• recording:manually=yes
• recording:automated=yes
• recording:remote=yes

without explaining them. I can get what "manually" means, but what's the supposed difference between automated and remote? —M!dgard [ talk ] 21:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this needs more explanation. I can imagine that "automatic" means that there is a device that collects data automatically, but "remote" is a bit cryptic. I can make the guess that remote means that the data is transferred from the data logger to some other remote storage rather than having to be collected manually at the site. But it's not totally clear. --Mullenkamp1 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wildlife (trap camera)

I'd like to add a wildlife section with the tags

• monitoring:wildlife=yes
• monitoring:wildlife=trap_camera

Is that ok? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm monitoring:wildlife=yes only has 15 uses and monitoring:wildlife=trap_camera appears unused and is not in the expected tag format. I'd suggest making a tagging proposal or tagging more of these features first. Quincylvania (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not made for the proposal process. I've tried that in the past and it each time has been a traumatic experience. I just want to map.

How would you tag a wildlife trap camera instead? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

monitoring:wildlife=yes seems reasonable, and/or something under man_made=surveillance. Quincylvania (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't monitoring:wildlife=trap_camera be a generalisation to the expected format, rather than a contradiction? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Standard monitoring type tags are in the format monitoring:*=yes or monitoring:*=no. Editors like iD can handle arbitrary namespaced keys like monitoring:ice_cream=yes, but not arbitrary values like monitoring:*=ice_cream. If any new values are introduced then IMO they should also be status values, like monitoring:*=disused. You can make up any keys though like monitoring:trap_camera=*. Quincylvania (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)