Proposal:Outdoor Screens

Outdoor Screens
Proposal status:	Voting (under way)
Proposed by:	Kylenz
Tagging:	man_made=video_wall Data item
Applies to:	Way
Definition:	A large digital screen
Statistics:
Draft started:	2021-07-09
RFC start:	2021-07-09
Vote start:	2021-07-23
Vote end:	2021-08-06

Proposal

A  Video wall (also called an LED Wall) is a large digital screen, constructed out of smaller  LED panels. Digital screens are used to show video, film, TV, camera feeds, advertising content, or other digital content. They are especially common at large events, and at events venues like stadiums and outdoor cinemas.

This proposal suggests a new tag, man_made=video_wall, which may be used for any kind of digital screen (not just advertising).

Rationale

There is already a tag for screens used for advertising purposes: advertising=screen, but not for screens used for other purposes.

Tagging

Draw a Way, and tag it as man_made=video_wall. The left side of the way is the front of the screen.

• 

  Example in iD

Notes:

• You may combine man_made=video_wall with barrier=wall only if the LED wall sits on the ground and therefore acts as a barrier. See the examples section below
• You may combine man_made=video_wall with advertising=screen if its sole purpose is to show advertising material.

Other useful tags to use in combination are support=*, operator=*, height=*, min_height=* (see examples below)

Examples

• 

  An LED wall supported by two poles. Use man_made=video_wall + support=pole

• 

  An LED wall sitting on ground. Use man_made=video_wall + support=ground + barrier=wall

• Led wall on building.jpg

  An LED wall on the side of a building. Use man_made=video_wall + support=wall_mounted

• 

  An LED wall on top of a fold-out container. Use man_made=video_wall + support=roof, also map the container as building=container

Special Cases

• 

  A screen used purely for advertising. Use man_made=video_wall + advertising=screen (+ support=wall_mounted)

• 

  A screen used as an outdoor cinema. Map the screen with man_made=video_wall. Also map the whole cinema using a Node or Area tagged with amenity=cinema

Height

Use the tags height=* and min_height=* to map the height of the screen. See the page min_height=* for a good explanation of how to use tags

• 

  The screen is 4 metres high, the pole is 3 metres high. Thus, height=7 and min_height=3

Rendering

none proposed.

Features/Pages affected

• Map Features
• Tag:advertising=screen to note that it should be combined with man_made=video_wall
• Tag:amenity=cinema, Key:drive_in, Key:open_air to explain that screens at outdoor cinemas and drive-in cinemas may be mapped using this new tag

External discussions

• Discussion on the 'tagging' mailing list

See Also

• screen=* - unofficially used on venues (like amenity=cinema) to state how many screens are located inside.

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I approve this proposal. --Kylenz (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I believe our proposals should be self contained and not contain references to external sources in the definition (which could change at any time, and will be changed regardless of the requirements of OSM, in this case, wikipedia). I also believe it could be helpful to better explain which kind of features are included and are excluded, e.g. what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blinkenlights or https://designiwall.wordpress.com/tag/realitiesunited/ ? Currently I am tending towards voting no because of these shortcomings, but believe you could stop the voting, improve the definition and then restart it --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dieterdreist:, the two links you provided look very similar to one of the examples on this page, sorry if there is confusion about whether those are valid. What would you like to add to the existing definition? ("A Video wall [...] is a large digital screen, constructed out of smaller LED panels.") --Kylenz (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I would go with a functional description rather than a physical one. The examples I gave are not using LEDs (at least the first 2 blinkenlights used standard halogen lights), and LEDs are not a requirement IMHO, the distinctive feature is that you can show video. It should also be said whether the screen must be generic (be able to show any kind of video) or if specific (custom single purpose) installations able to show only a certain kind of animation, count in. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes we should add the word 'typically' ("A Video wall [...] is a large digital screen, typically constructed out of smaller LED panels"). Regarding your second comment: The first sentence of this wiki page is the physical description. The second sentence is the functional description ("Digital screens are used to show video, [...], or other digital content"). I hope this is clear enough? The type of video shown on the screen does not affect whether you can map it or not. We can explicitly add this sentence to the wiki page if you like. --Kylenz (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am voting no for the current state of the proposal but agree we would benefit from tags like this. The definitions must be improved.—Dieterdreist (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The description on this page looks self contained and sufficient without clicking any of the wikipedia links. I think the links are helpful though for further examples. --Aharvey (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. A direction-side definition is not suitable to be added to a feature which can be potentially be both-sided. For reference (need to check whether they are made from multiple display panels), there are ~50 = ~6% advertising=screen + sides=2 instances. ---- Kovposch (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kovposch:, this proposal follows the same logic as the existing advertising tagging scheme. I think it just needs better explaining: By default the screen is one-sided, this means sides=1 is assumed. By default the front is the left side. If you add sides=2 then it doesn't matter which side is the front since it is two-sided. --Kylenz (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't feel logically rigorous. The reason behind my extra disagreement is there have been questions about both-sided features when a tag has been defined with a direction-side meaning, as I have read in /Talk:Tag:barrier=guard_rail#Tagging_guard_rails_with_two_"inner"_sides and Talk:Key:kerb#"Double_sided"_kerbs. This is a unnecessary requirement. It would need extra caution in drawing, and be prone to errors. There isn't such definition for advertising=* either. By adding a combination through man_made=video_wall, you would be imposing an extra rule to advertising=screen that may affect all advertising=* features. In using it, editors will have to reverse the direction of existing advertising=screen objects when adding man_made=video_wall. Alternatively, if one wants to specify the face, an extra tag eg side=* could be introduced. ---- Kovposch (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To confirm, you think we should just remove the requirement to draw it with the left side being the front? I'm not too concerned about that, although it should be noted that this will make things harder for 3D rendering software. I imagine one day someone will introduce a tag like facing=left/right/both for screens, crash barriers, etc. --Kylenz (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

At least there's no need to suddenly add this when other related features don't have it. ---- Kovposch (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood - I was thinking of natural=cliff and barrier=retaining_wall where the side of the way does matter --Kylenz (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kovposch If the video is on both sides, would that not be two screens? ie. two ways sharing the same nodes but in reverse order? --Aharvey (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(Technically a video wall already has multiple panels) This proposal is about a video "wall", not the video screen on a video wall. Your interpretation would make it incompatible with advertising=* and sides=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Rskedgell (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lectrician1 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I do not think a video wall fits the definition of barrier=wall, but that isn't enough to make me reject an otherwise solid proposal. --Tordanik 16:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Well thought out tagging, solid wiki page here. --Aharvey (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Gileri (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think the description should be better defined like already mentioned and better explained regarding faces/sides, which wouldn't be enough for me to vote no, however the absence of reference to adding this as points is a no go for me. --AntMadeira (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @AntMadeira:, we can definitely update the documentation about this, also to add the sentance "The type of video shown on the screen does not affect whether you can map it or not." as mentioned above --Kylenz (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)