Hi mdroads,

Thanks for adding this useful info! Just a few notes about best practice when it comes to tagging masts/towers:

- Mobile Phone tags (communication:mobile_phone=yes): I noticed this got dropped. Both WCEM and T-Mobile co-locate on this site, so both the radio and mobile phone tags should coexist.
- Mast vs. tower: The key differentiator between masts and towers is accessibility. Towers have platforms and/or stairs, whereas masts have ladder steps only. This structure is ladder-access lattice, so mast makes more sense here.
- Structure name: The mast belongs to STC Three LLC, so adding "WCEM-FM Tower" as the structure name misattributes the site.

The easiest way to map this is probably to separate the broadcast tags from the structure tags - map each tenant as a separate antenna (with relevant per-tenant values) located near the structure.

Hey Kevin,

Thanks for the heads up! I can revert the changes to the charging stations.

It may be worth resolving this with NSI - it appears the current build isn't respecting the not:operator:wikidata tag for this type of feature. Decoupling the name and operator tags from the ChargePoint brand entry might be the easiest solution.

Best,
hwierzbicki

Hey John, thanks for the comment. Not purposeful - unfortunately CoMaps doesn't give editors much control about when a changeset is submitted.

Adding a curb node or crossing way establishes physical presence and inherently provides more data than omitting it (even if not every property of the node/way is denoted).

Does all mapping need to immediately benefit end users (or data customers) for it to be useful?

Rapid auto-adds "kerb=yes" whenever adding unspecified curb nodes.

Discussed on github here:

https://github.com/facebook/Rapid/issues/1672

Reviewing the wiki, Rapid may not be following "best" practice here:

>Some sort of kerb is present, but it can't or hasn't yet been determined whether it is raised, lowered, flush, etc. This may be useful when mapping via aerial imagery (prior to field survey) or if the exact type of kerb can't be recalled.
‡: Cautious routers could consider this to mean wheelchair=no, so whenever possible this value should not be used other than on a temporary basis.

But there's also 60k instances with this mapping convention:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/kerb=yes

So perhaps the wiki/routers should be updated to better handle this

Hey GenericUsername4,

Please check the wiki regarding the distinction between street lamps and lighting masts:

tower:type=lighting

"This tag is for large poles that are used for lighting.
E.g. lighting for stadiums, public places, floodlights, and large headlight masts.

This does not include street lights, even if they are larger."

Hi silversurfer!

Per the wiki, every tennis court should be individually tagged and ideally the entire pitch (with fence) should be tagged as a recreation ground.

---

"Draw the area of every single tennis court and add leisure=pitch + sport=tennis."

"Tennis courts are typically surrounded by a fenced area. Draw the way of the fence around the court(s) and add barrier=fence. Add any entrances to the fenced area with barrier=gate and connect them to footpaths or other equivalent ways in the surrounding area. The closed 'fence' way containing courts inside it is often tagged with landuse=recreation_ground as well."

---

sport=tennis

The node for each tennis court will eventually be turned into an area - I literally can't keep enough tasks available here:

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/41188

Hi,

Please read the documentation re: Lighting Masts.

"This tag is for large poles that are used for lighting.
E.g. lighting for stadiums, public places, floodlights, and large headlight masts.

This does not include street lights, even if they are larger."

Thanks!

Hi osmhonehone,

Instead of mapping utility pole or streetlamp-mounted microcells like this:

MCCMNC=310410
communication:mobile=yes
man_made=tower
tower:construction=pole
tower:type=communication

It would be better to follow existing standards and wiki guidelines to map them like this:

MCC=310
MNC=410
communication:mobile_phone=yes
highway=street_lamp (or man_made=utility_pole)

This approach should align more closely with current tagging practices.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Hi Tex,

Please avoid using:
"man_made"="communications_tower"

This tag is meant for very large landmark towers (e.g., CN Tower). For typical telecom structures, a better tag set is:

"man_made"="mast"
"tower:type"="communication"

See the wiki for more details. Thanks!

Hi Adam,

Something like support:pole (872,000 uses) may be better than tower:type=advertising (542 uses) in this case.

Feel free to browse the wiki for more ideas:

advertising=*

Hi rivermont,

There's no WASU-FM transmitter at the school.

Confirmed via Wikipedia: "Their transmitter sits atop Rich Mountain in Watauga county."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASU-FM

And via FCC query:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/fm-query

Hi David,

I noticed you retagged a mobile phone mast (node/10895269171) as a mobile phone tower in this changeset.

As a reminder, here is how the wiki defines the difference between a tower and a mast:

"Unlike a man_made=tower which is accessible and provides platforms, a man_made=mast only offers ladder steps to climb it on the outside."

As this site more closely matches the definition of a mast, I've gone ahead and re-tagged it.

Hi Greg,

Responding to your PMs here.

Thanks for explaining the issue. If the iD editor isn’t showing mobile_phone in the dropdown, I’d recommend reporting it as a bug on the iD GitHub page:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

As a workaround, you could manually add the communication:mobile_phone tag without using the dropdown or try another editor, rather than deleting the nodes.

Regarding the tower vs. mast distinction:

- Towers must be freestanding and provide platforms for accessibility.

- Masts can be either freestanding OR guyed and must not have platforms, offering only ladder steps for access.

The key difference is accessibility. The presence or absence of guy wires does not determine the classification. For example, the wiki page for masts features a freestanding monopole-style structure as the example photo.

Based on this, the three sites you changed to towers align more with the definition of masts.

Hi Greg,

I’m a bit unclear about the purpose of this edit—it seems you’ve deleted three existing communication mast nodes and replaced them with new nodes tagged as communication towers.

A few concerns:

1. By removing the original nodes instead of simply re-tagging them, you’ve erased their edit history. This goes against best practices as outlined here:

osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

2. The correct tag for these structures is man_made=mast, not man_made=tower. According to the OSM Wiki: “A tower is accessible and provides platforms, whereas a mast only offers ladder steps to climb it.”

man_made=tower

Notably, one of the deleted nodes was one you originally added as a mast.

3. Deleting the nodes has also removed additional descriptive tags, such as the construction type, which were not re-added in your edit.

Would you mind clarifying the reasoning behind this changeset?

Hi Minh,

Thanks for the comment and for linking the discussion.

As you noticed, my edit aimed to align the communication mast with current documentation.

While I see the merit in your proposed changes, I have some concerns about implementing them in practice:

1. The vast majority of communication masts are collocations with multiple operators.
2. Mapping masts as areas, as mentioned in the discussion, adds unnecessary complexity and essentially forces micromapping.
3. Since the proposal has not yet been accepted into the documentation, current guidelines should generally be followed.

Regarding the removal of the name—this was an oversight on my part, and I agree it makes sense to retain it in this case.

I removed the wikidata tag because there are multiple operators at this site (with unique wikidata tags), and I believed retaining a single wikidata tag would inaccurately represent the collocation.

If every other style of site (monopole/lattice/guyed) has a construction type, why wouldn't a site mimicking a tree or flagpole?

Thanks for the comment. What would you suggest the construction type be for a site mimicking a tree or flagpole?

Hi,

I've noticed you've been adding some communications masts!

Please take note that the tag "man_made=communications_tower" should rarely be used. Instead, please use the combo "man_made=mast" +
"tower:type=communication".

Thanks, and feel free to check the documentation for more info!

Hey Alan,

I've noticed that you've been changing the tower construction type (tower:construction) designation of some sites from "monopole" to "freestanding".

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that "monopole" is the industry standard term for these types of sites. While "freestanding" is a general catch-all term for sites without any guy wires, it is less specific than "monopole." Additionally, "monopole" is already widely used, with over 9,000 nodes worldwide using this tag.

Thanks!