Proposal:Telecom distribution points

Telecom distribution points
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	fanfouer
Tagging:	telecom=distribution_point Data item
Applies to:
Definition:	Introduce telecom distribution points mapping with brand new telecom=distribution_point
Statistics:
Draft started:	2019-04-05
RFC start:	2019-05-09
Vote start:	2019-12-09
Vote end:	2019-12-23

Rationale

Distribution points (722-12-19) are piece of equipment, often small boxes, allowing to directly connect (without the help of a patch panel) up to 15 individuals and households to a single telecom local loop upstream cable (independently for copper pairs or optical fibre). They are way smaller than an actual telecom=connection_point and often installed in the street, basements or on top of poles. Distribution points are the last connection point on public network toward subscribers.
As possibily visible, permanent and ubiquitous features, it may be interesting to add them in OSM with a reviewed tagging. Several concepts already exists and are useful to define how we can use them: location=*, support=*, telecom=* and telecom:medium=*. See this telecom access network chart to identifiy where a distribution point is located on ground.

Such points can eventually host multiplexers like British DACS to connect several subsribers to a single pair.

These points are distinguishable from other equipment with a telephone or ISO 7010-W004 sign (laser hazard ) symbol and always directly connect houses, flats or offices. They differ from electric equipment marked with ISO 7010-W012 sign (electric hazard ).

A distribution point differs from a connection point in its architecture: distribution only consist in direct connections while connection points allow patching between two independent panels. telecom=connection_point isn't suitable here.

Proposal

It is proposed to introduce telecom=distribution_point to map all those small boxes with their refs and properties.
This key is intended for nodes only.
For sake of precision, relevancy and One_feature,_one_OSM_element principle, each box seen on ground should get its dedicated , even if several of them share the same pole (which will get its own node too).
For sake of Verifiability, such points installed underground or in private properties shouldn't be added on OSM.

Pretty simple to map: look for such distribution points, put a node on their exact location and tag them with following tagging

Tagging

Key	Value	Description	Use
telecom	distribution_point	The distribution point should be mapped with a	mandatory
telecom:medium	copper, fibre or coaxial	The type of local loop it is used to.	recommended
ref	<reference>	Reference of the point as seen on ground if applicable.	recommended
operator	<operator>	The name of the company that operates the distribution point.	recommended
owner	<owner>	The name of the organization which has the ownership of the equipment (State or local administritive organisation for example)	optional
support	pedestal, pole,...	Support holding the distribution point box. They are usually installed on dedicated concrete pedestal, poles or walls.	optional
capacity	<number>	Amount of connections the point can reach. Usually 1, 7, 14 or 20	optional
location	underground, overground or overhead	Location of the distribution point. useful to indicate a ladder or a pod is required to get access to it	optional
manufacturer	<company>	Name of the company that provide the box of the distribution point	optional

There is no reviewed way to tag telecom poles while some of those boxes can be installed on poles actually. You can still use support=pole if you want to state that the box is installed on a pole.

Edition management

No keys are planned to be replaced in this proposal.

Affected pages

• Update the telecom=* page.
• Create the telecom=distribution_point page.

Examples

Photo	Location	Tagging	Note
	France	telecom=distribution_point operator=Orange telecom:medium=copper location=* support=wall_mounted ref:FR:PTT=AB0 T13 A4	A very common French telecom distribution point in a white box. Such points can connect up to 7 customers to local loop copper distribution cables
	France	telecom=distribution_point operator=Orange telecom:medium=fibre location=* support=pole ref:FR:Orange=PT3359	The same box as the copper one upside, intended for newer fibre networks to the house (FTTH). Distinction between copper and fibre comes from the ISO7010-W004 (laser beam) symbol and nature of cables coming inside. It's written on them that it's G657 fibre and proper ref on green tags confirms it.
	France	telecom=distribution_point operator=Orange telecom:medium=copper location=overhead support=pole	A copper distribution point on the top of a pole
Illustration	Spain	POTS box on the left: telecom=distribution_point operator=Telefonica telecom:medium=copper location=overhead support=wall ref=72 76-100 5256 Optic fibre box on the right: telecom=distribution_point operator=Movistar telecom:medium=fibre location=overhead support=wall ref=0-8211
Illustration	Spain	telecom=distribution_point operator=Movistar telecom:medium=fibre location=overhead support=wall ref=29-321180	A distribution box on a wall for new fibre service connection adjacent households

Vote

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 21 votes for and 4 votes against.

• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Eric B. (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I do not see any discussion about this proposal in response to the RFC in the mailing list or on the talk page. I don't think a new tag should be approved without discussion why it is needed. I have trouble imagining mapping the boxes shown in the example images myself, or understanding exactly what they are. Also it appears all the examples are from France - has this been discussed with other communities? I think it would be a mistake to add this to the Map Features page if there has not been any consensus about how this tag is useful and verifiable. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it must be explained that a tag is needed (the mere fact someone has put up a proposal is indicative that there is a presumed need), and absence of discussion at least implies there was no immediate opposition. Voting is not about putting something on the map features page (there is also a usage requirement), but about voicing critique about inherent problems. I also do not see a problem with examples just being from one country (they can be added later anyway).--Dieterdreist (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I still see no actionable explanation how mappers are supposed to distinguish this kind of boxes from other kind of telecom/electric boxes. Is it mappable without copying from official data? I never noticed such feature and after reading the proposal I can't imagine way to find and identify them. "basements" part is also worrying, it seems not verifiable to me. And what about places where all such infrastructure is buried underground or in basements? It seems poor idea to map things like that, buried major power lines and pipelines makes some sort of sense but this... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

if the features are not verifiable (in private basements, no public information about the locations available), they should not be mapped, OK, but the things on the pictures (I have such boxes in "my" road as well) are clearly verifiable. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. For clarity, the key name distribution_box would probably have been better. Otherwise, the proposal seems fine. It is clear, that the principle of verifiabilty is also valid here and that therefore boxes in private buildings (where they are usually located where i live) don't belong here. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, boxes are a possibility, not the only one (when ungerground the French name is pieuvre (octopus ;-)). --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If the distribution point is underground, how is a mapper suppose to confirm it's location and function? --Jeisenbe (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

usually because there is a cover with things written on it. Underground infrastructure in the street is typically accessible for inspection and maintenance. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Xavb22440 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Renecha (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --JacLavi (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. It would be cool if the article that's created for it mentions mapping them with man_made=street_cabinet + street_cabinet=telecom if they are included in street cabinets and not just little boxes. Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Sommerluk (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cyrille37 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Severin (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In my opionion these boxes are too small to map and most of them will be on private property. In my opionion there is even a huge lack of mapping telecom street cabinets, so why there should be a need for mapping these much smaller boxes. --TheBlackMan (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to spent time to write down your opinion here. Argument about the lack of street cabinets vs distribution point sounds like we'd better mapping city halls before adding houses adresses numbers. In practice, the two are useful and our semantic taxonomy has to reflect their differences Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Fnordson (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --User 5359 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In my opionion these boxes are too small to map and most of them will be on private property.--geozeisig (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. Don't we need an appropriate tag for the first we'll find on public space? Voting no doesn't prevent anyone to map them if they want to. Fanfouer (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Sommerluk (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you for this well documented proposal. Even if the proposal seems useless, it is important to offer semiology to private actors who may need it and even if there is a priori more important to map
• I approve this proposal. --Deuzeffe (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal.This is a good proposal for mapping the last distrbution point. I agree. But in regard to mapping telecom infrastructure there is some systematic work to be done, I think. We have the approved telecom=exchange but between the distrbution point and the exchange there is some more infrastructure, that should be tagged seperately in order to be usefull: KVZ, DSLAM, BRAS. --Klischka (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)