Proposed features/Base transceiver station

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rejected. Please use man_made=tower instead

Tag:amenity=bts
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: fatbozz
Tagging: amenity=bts
Applies to: node
Definition: Good landmark in flatland
Rendered as: Osm bts.png
Drafted on: 2009-04-06
RFC start: *
Vote start: 2009-04-07
Vote end: 2009-04-21

Executive summary

BTS is good visible landmark in land or on the top of hill. I think its usefull to map it in OSM

Rationale

This proposal suggests amenity=bts for the following reasons:

  • good landmark
  • can you map coverage of cellular networks
  • may be useful to get rough position information for faster gps first fix
  • information where to go, if gsm receiving is bad

How to tag

amenity=bts is used for all places wher bts is placed.

Optionals tags

  • operator=<mobile operator> if you known who is owner of BTS.
  • network_type=2G - GSM,2.5G - EDGE,3G - UMTS, 3.5G - HSPA, 4G - LTE
  • cell_id=<cid> if you know the cell id
  • location_area_code=<lac> if you know the location area code

Voting

Place your vote below

pro

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- fatbozz 09:20, 07 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Al3xius 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, because BTS should rather be tagged as a service together with man_made=tower. --Skippern 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal, please see discussion. --Telegnom 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --!i! 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Mat 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Sebastian Reichel 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --rurseekatze 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mercator 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- User:Meghanand Monday, 10 August 2009, 11:00:27 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Walley 06:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I am waiting for this for so long ...
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Merch 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--flomigulau 18:284, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I also needed this feature. A normal tower is much broader than a BTS (mainly a simple mast).

=con

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, see discussion. --Seawolff 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, I think the tag should be more descriptive, bts is not a commonly known abbreviation (IMO). --Kenkku 11:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, I agree with Seawolff and Kenkku. EsbenDamgaard 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, I agree with Seawolff and Kenkku. --Michi 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It there's a tower, the tower is man_made=tower (or man_made=mast). One should add to that, say, communication=bts. Not all bts's are towers, anyway, most in urban setting are visible just as wall mounted antennas. Alv 06:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Socks 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Dblas 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) See my discussion about my arguments. One symbol is not enough. BTS are often gathered by 2 or 3. Difficult to mention 3 pictograms on the same coordinates.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Lesi 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC) see discussion
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Tag:man made=tower seems to be more logical. Optional tags seems to go to technical. Possible can be filled into Tag:man made=tower "ref" tag. --Kslotte 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.--Islanit 06:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- liotier 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC) The BTS term is GSM-specific. In UMTS it is named "node B". But I don't disagree with the idea of surveying public radio network cells.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Already covered with man_made=tower. --Willem1 16:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It should not refer specifically to towers, see other comments. BTSs on buildings etc. also exist. I would however favor mapping them. --Tessarakt2 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like this proposal. for same reasons as above plus we try to limit usage of abbreviations, especially when it is technical. --Pieren 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. AM909 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :
1. For 20 years, I serviced wireless telecom sites (two-way and cellular), mobile equipment, and developed software for wireless operators around the world. I can't ever recall hearing the acronym "BTS".
2. There are better, broader proposals that cover all types of communications sites.
3. I generally object to mapping of important infrastructure elements for security reasons. It can be argued that the towers may be important landmarks (though they are rarely tall enough to be considered such). in which case the existing man_made=tower should be sufficient.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. For towers the existing tags are already enough. It should be made explicit that it won't refer to the towers but the actual (relatively small) bts units (that are not so "good landmarks"). Ij 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Results

Total votes 29; proposal approved by 12 users (41%) and rejected by 17 (59%), thus proposal is rejected. Yarl 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)