Proposed features/Lightning conductor

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Lightning rod (or lightning conductor)
Status: Draft (under way)
Proposed by: Xan
Tagging: lightning_rod=yes,no
Applies to: Way
Definition: Presence of lightning rod in a place.
Rendered as: hidden
Drafted on: 2010-11-14


A tag for formalize the presence of lightning rod in highways (pararayos in spanish, parallamps in catalan).


In US and UK usually lightning rod are small and in top of buildings but in Spain there are very big lightning rods. These are on ground or on top of antenas. Theses could have 2 meters of height. So visually it could be hinted where we are. Probably other countries have big lightning rods.


  • lightning_rod={yes,no}: For tag that one node has a lightning conductor

Useful combinations

  • lightning_rod:width=x meters :for indicate the
  • lightning_rod:height=X meters: the heigth of the lightning_rod
  • lightning_rod:ref= : if it has a reference.
  • lightning_rod:support= : indicate how is the lightning rod supported/anchored (on ground,...) (like support of clock tag)


Applies to



none or something that indicates that in a node it has a lightning rod. Anyone has a clue? We could have for example a man_made=tower with lightning rod on top. Consider it.



Ceyockey 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC): I think this is a useful addition for the stand-alone type of conductor illustrated here. It would be useful to indicate in the completed entry the alternatives for 'integrated' conductors on towers and buildings. I think that most structures of any size have some integrated or attached conduction accessory. Therefore, what might be useful as a property for structures is an indicator if there is not such an accessory present. For instance, the default for building=* would be to assume that a conduction accessory is integrated; therefore, to indicate one is not available, one could use building:lightning_rod=no. The addition of :lightning_rod=no could be encouraged for any structure, potentially, so that one need not define the condition separately for each key-defined structure; the understanding would be that :lightning_rod=yes would be unnecessary and could be removed by bot if it becomes a significant contaminant of the data.

Ceyockey 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC): There is an alternative to this proposal, which would be to use the man_made=tower in the form of tower:type=lightning_rod for the stand alone conductor. For the integrated conductor, as mentioned above, one would assume one is present, and if one is not present use tower:lightning_rod=no ← which means that the tower itself would be a lightening rod, not a good thing if it is, for instance, a communications tower.

Xan 08:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I like the proposal of tower:type=lightning_rod for stand-alone conductor. Althought there could be exceptions like ""Machina meteorologica" (see wikipedia But I see problems with lightning rods that are not stand-alone: in Spain most towers have lightning conductor at the top. How to tag it? man_made=tower, tower:type=communications, tower:lightning_rod=yes?

The majorty of the buildings of Spain have not a lightning rod. Only huge or high edifications do. So I would like not assuming default :lightening_rod=yes. I think {key|:lightening_rod|no}} it's better. Thanks for your comments.

Ceyockey 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC): For buildings, one could create a new sub-key for the proposed feature set described at Proposed features/Building attributes. For instance, building:lightning_rod=* or building:roof:lightning_rod=*. The same could be used for towers, as you suggest (tower:lightning_rod=yes). Thank you for providing that internationalization information about Spain. I'm not sure how information like that is being captured, but it would be useful to include in a section for the accepted feature once this discussion closes.
Ceyockey 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC): For the machina meterologica, there is a key combination that exists, man_made=monitoring_station and monitoring:weather=*. I think that lightning_rod=yes would be a good useful combination with the monitoring_station key for something like the machina.
--Xan 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC): Very good Ceyockey. I like your proposals: sub-tag for buildings (building:lightening_rod=*) and another for non-building things (lightening_rod=yes). Although it's duplicate things, it's consequent of current tagging system. I like it very much.

Proposed displaying

Ceyockey 01:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC): proposed icon → Basic lightening with rod.png

I'm in agree with you. Good icon. Everyone see what it means. +1 vote.--Xan 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)