Talk:Proposed features/Key:light source
These tags would be really helpful to use for ways, or way relations, not only for individual nodes/lamps. So the text at [Proposed_features/Key:light_source#Description]] would read "device, or series of devices", where it currently says "device", or something similar. Abbafei (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- So you mean something like natural=tree_row? Sounds reasonable. MHohmann (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- There exists a key support=* for exactly this purpose, which is used already for other objects, such as amenity=clock. I suggest using this for lamps as well, for the sake of uniformity. MHohmann (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest support=wire should be support=catenary, which is the correct term where the support wire is stretched between two or more attachment points. You might consider also having support=pendant where the support wire has just a single attachment point vertically above the lantern (if you think there are enough use cases to justify).
light:count=* - need to be clearer if this is a count of light_source=* (such as lanterns, floodlights) or a count of light bulbs, flames, mantles, etc. I don't think it makes sense to count light bulbs, flames, mantles in a single lantern, and light:count=* should be a count of light_source=* (lanterns, floodlights, etc). Hence light:flames=* should be dropped as it doesn't make sense separately from light:count=*.
Primary tag values
No idea of what these are meant to describe at present. I would suggest that it simply describe the lights projected pattern - taking over the role of light:shape ... the values then become much clearer e.g. floodlight, spotlight, spherical (a point source), cylindrical (omnidirectional). The term 'lantern' is not a good chice for a description - has multiple interpretations. Warin61 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to simply be a categorization of light source types, mostly based on purpose. I think that kind of classification is helpful, as it's usually tricky to describe all the details of a lighting setup with subtags. But we know what a floodlight in a stadium typically looks like, for example.--Tordanik 16:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
light:method=LED - Light emitting diode.
It should be led (or then you should write LASER too).
Lower case is easier to type and leds are now an usual term. Like laser it's an abbreviation.
Not a big deal (for German-speakers: das ist mir Käse, yes case :-D)) but for coherence it should be the same casing.
- As a general comment, it would be really nice to see the primary tag be light=*, but it seems that the key redirects to the seamark project even though it is not explicitly mentioned, and then we would have to think of what is going to happen to the 2,205 existing objects (according to Taginfo) with the key.
- If light=* becomes the primary key, we could then make light:source=* refer to the type of light (instead of the potentially unclear light:method=*).
- In any case, there is a need for a tag that will allow me to describe the model of the street light (e.g. Philips MA60): for consistency reasons, I suggest light:model=* instead of lantern=*.
As for the lamp type, the common abbreviations for low and high pressure sodium lamps are SOX and SON respectively. I feel that the abbreviations could be used for sake of simplicity (e.g. light:source=SOX and light:source=SON).Point withdrawn for being potentially confusing.
- I think we may need to review how we tag solar-powered lamps, because they may not always use LEDs.
- Due to the widespread use of such a routine on street lights (regarding light:lit=*), it could be mentioned for data users that all lights should be assumed to be light:lit=dusk-dawn, unless defined otherwise.
- Finally, in many countries, there are light towers that act as street lights (such as the CU Phsoco P655). I think there could be separate tag for that, perhaps light_source=high_mast or light=high_mast?
In conclusion, the current tagging scheme for the street lights are a total mess: for example, the current scheme for lamp_type=* does not distinguish between low and high pressure lighting, for which I have to improvise. I agree that it needs fixing.
The general recommendation for units in OSM (see Map Features/Units) is to insert a space between the number and the unit. Would anyone mind if I apply this to the examples listed on this proposal page? This would mean, for example, changing light:colour=560nm to light:colour=560 nm. --Tordanik 22:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)