Talk:Proposed features/Nesting Site
The name of the proposal could be changed to something like "Bird tower" or similar since is also for other species. For example in Portugal we don't have these "Swallows Towers" but we have many for ciconia/storks:
Hi. I remembered other situations: this proposal is for "artificial" towers/masts/poles built by humans and placed specifically for birds, right? And what about other artificial elements like electricity towers or others not intended/or also intended for birds? If these are not in the scope of this proposal, at least the proposal could have some information about other special cases. Here are a few examples:
This situation is different nowadays since the company responsible for the motorway changed the sign structure (it's a pity, because it was beautiful passing that place, but it was dangerous) and now the nests are a few meters off the road (in poles and towers) but can happen in other places. In the left upper corner we can see also a power tower and a bird tower simultaneously, next image has this type of tower only.
Many nests from 2 species in a pole. Another one similar: File:Štrkovo gnezdo.JPG. Could be tagged with various values like "birds_nest=ciconia;swallow"
Other examples clearly covered by this proposal
At least I think is covered, and could be added to the proposal examples:
Another reason for including this special cases/examples: this proposal, if I understood right, is also about adopting birds_nest=* tag, right? I've chosen ciconia/storks nests because they are the most visible ones in places I know, and are useful for navigation purposes, like industrial chimneys are in OSM. Of course other big nests are important too. I hope this helps a bit to make a good proposal. Zermes (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
--Phoks (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC): Thank you very much again for the input. I used some of the material collected by you for the proposal. After a discussion with my tagging group, we can start the proposal process quite soon, I think.
Why using English common names for birds where the species/taxon for plants are written in Latin language? See Key:species.
For coherence it should be better to use species:en if you want the English common name.
That's a valuable comment. I am convinced that we should adhere here to the description of the species tag. (Anyway, we don't define species=* ourselves but just use it, hence we should use it as it was defined. ;-) ) --Meillo (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I also say Thank You for the input on the species tagging. I modified the proposal page, so the standard use of species is proposed to be used.
I'm not an expert on tagging schemes but some food for thought:
- Pigeon houses - Palomares - in Spain: https://ucronin.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/pigeon-houses-palomares/ ...specifically built to host birds. Are they in scope?
- Swift towers/poles/masts as per UK, Ireland: http://www.swift-conservation.org/swift_towers_poles.htm ...proposal seems to handle these?
- Barn owl nest pole: http://www.barnowltrust.org.uk/barn-owl-nestbox/barn-owl-pole-nest-box/ ...proposal seems to handle these. Also kestrel, osprey, ...
- Bat tower in US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Key_Bat_Tower ... if bats also in scope we don't use "nest" with bats...consider "wildlife_site"?
- Thanks for your comment and the links!
- * Pigeon houses are not in scope as the tag man_made=dovecote for them exists already. Please see the explanation about that in the proposal.
- * Bats were cut out of scope to not let explode the proposal. Because what about "insect hotels" and such? We decided to focus on (wild) birds.
- --Meillo (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
First voting attempt
We started a first voting attempt, but due to numerous useful comments, we aborted the voting and refined the proposal. All comments and votes of this first voting have been copied to this discussion page for conservation.
- I approve this proposal. --Meillo (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Species 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I nes this proposal. sorry for coming late. I think the tower:type key is OK, but I have a problem with suggesting man_made=tower as a main tag. Mast is ok, but you haven't provided any photos amongst the lots of photos in this proposal, where the tower tag would be appropriate. Please also note that power towers are not tagged as man_made=tower but as power=tower. I would change my vote to yes if you either remove references to man_made=tower or provide suitable examples when to put this combination. --Dieterdreist (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've added another image that might be more a tower than a mast (it's currently the third image on the page). But I'm not really sure, if this is a tower. Anyway, this proposal only deals with a new value of tower:type=*, so why exclude towers to be tagged with it, but only masts? Should we really be this restrictive? --Phoks (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Phoks (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --i had a .sig when sigs were cool (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Same as Dieterdreist, none of the photos are towers, while you suggest the second picture is one. That's a mast to me. You get a yes from me when you clear out the mast/tower confusion.
- I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Sorry but examining better I came to this conclusion. There is some image in the discussion page which show objects with the same purpose but are not masts or towers. I think the main subject to map is the nest or the nesting site itself and a better mapping is something like man_made=nesting_site and optionally support=*pole/mast/tower --sorcrosc (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Yvanoé (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Rdell (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Scaro (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- Sorry, In all cases, it is not a mast or tower. At best a pole. You know the definition of a man_made=tower and man_made=mast? The definition of tower is only for communication. The definition of mast is variable, but noever for a pole. See also: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:tower:type !!!
- I approve this proposal. --looniverse 12:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Hufgardm (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- It seems to me that a 'bird tower' is an observation tower. Not a nesting pole. Foxandpotatoes (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- It would be feared that also nests under the protection are tagged.--geozeisig (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Nest for bats on a tree
What would be proper example tags for a human-made nest for basts mounted on a live tree, see also question at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:support#Tree-mounted.3F Can/may man_made=nesting_site be used on natural=tree ? How to indicate that it concerns bats? Because, when combined in a node for a tree, species=* and genus=* and taxon=* are used for the tree. Pander (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you should not use the same object for a tree and for something in or on the tree. These are different objects and should be modeled as different objects in OSM as well. My suggestion is to use a node relation if the tree is modeled as a node. See here for more details. You can then indicate the type of animal as usual (the nesting site tag covers not only bird's nests but in general nests of wild animals, i.e. it can be used for bats as well). --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)