Proposal talk:Goods conveyor
Need a similar tag for conveyors associated with mining, bulk coal loaders and similar ?? mine=conveyor --Drlizau 09:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
For different types of conveyors:
- goods_conveyor=belt -> For the usual belt and roller conveyor, these are so common the tag could be implicit
- goods_conveyor=pneumatic -> For a pneumatic (air) conveying system
- goods_conveyor=bucket -> Basically a belt conveyor with buckets attached (usually for steep inclines)
And then something to distinguish material:
- material=coal etc
- type=coal etc
Perhaps we could also add some additional tags for individual nodes along a conveyor way:
- goods_conveyor=stacker
- goods_conveyor=reclaimer
- goods_conveyor=hopper
For the rendering, I was thinking something along these lines (no white gap in middle):
┌────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┐
└────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┘
- Zhent 06:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The different conveyor types seem like a good idea. For the stuff being transported, I suggest to avoid the key "type", as that key already has several other meanings. goods=* is already used as an access key, so I have no better idea than material=* right now (although this could be misunderstood to mean the material of the conveyor is made of).
- Regardless of the merits of your suggestions, however, I will not have the time to advance this proposal myself, so it is essentially abandoned. If anyone wants to take it, feel free to do so. --Tordanik 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Material
I agree with Tordanik that material=* would mean the material the conveyor itself is made of. I suggest either resource=* or product=*. --Fkv (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Rendering
While Zhent's suggestion looks nice, I think that virtually all conveyors are unidirectional, and this calls for an unidirectional map symbol. Maybe something like >>>>>>>>>> ? This would also differ more clearly from roads. --Fkv (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
mass limits
Shall the proposal be emended to recommend conjoint use of maxweight tagging? Arlo James Barnes (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so, for 4 reasons:
- If it means the maximum weight per meter, another key name should be used. Otherwise, it's not clear if the maxweight pertains to the entire conveyor or only the single way (if you split the conveyor in multiple parts). It's also unclear how the weight may be distributed.
- maxweight=* is defined as a "legal access restriction for vehicles", whereas on a conveyor it would rather be a technical specification.
- Technical specifications aren't geodata. I don't see how anyone could make use of such technical specification details in OSM. Those who work with the conveyor look up the specifications in the manual, not in OSM. Those who don't work with the conveyor don't care about the specifications.
- It's impossible for normal mappers to get those specifications right, let alone to keep them up to date.
- --Fkv (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)