[Data-modeling] [BULK] Re: remove /architecture/tower type

[Tom Morris]

Personally I don't have a problem with propertyless types,
particularly when they map to a commonly understood human
classification of things, but if we're going to ban them, then they
should all be banned.  City/Town is probably one of the most widely
used offenders.

A real issue here is discoverability.  If the word "Tower" pops into
someones head when they come across the Leaning Tower of Pisa, how do
they find that "Structure" is really the type that is supposed to be.
Poor mapping to the way people think about things, as well as lack of
regularity in the schema increase friction in the typing process.
Something that tripped me up recently was "Manufacturer."  There is no
such type and I didn't have time to dig through the schema to find out
what the right way to do it was, so I just dumped whatever I was
looking at into "Company."  There needs to be a way to guide folks
through the schema from the term they are thinking of to the
appropriate official type.

> Would it be better if we rename 'tower' as 'communication tower'?  (and add
> relevant properties, e.g. number of antennae, broadcast spectrum etc..).

A better name would be 'broadcast facility' or 'antenna farm' or
something else which matched just that set of properties.  These
things don't have to be towers.  They can be on a hill or on a tower
(oops, structure) used for something else entirely like a bell tower,
clock tower, or office tower.  Some of the important characteristics
like height above mean ground level (or whatever the technical term
is) are only partially related to their towerness.

> A rough definition when used in structural engineering: the difference
> between a tower and normal structure depends on the how dynamic the building
> is.  i.e. how much it moves with the wind, earthquakes etc..  This defines
> the difference between The Great Pyramid of Giza (138m tall, not a tower)
> and the Montjuic communications tower (136 m tall and a tower).  Dynamic
> properties of a building are calculated using the height as one of many
> factors.

With all due respect to the structural engineering field, I think
everyone knows a tower when they see one.  Despite it's incredibly
slow dynamics, pretty much everyone thinks of the not very tall and
not at all flexible structure at Pisa as a tower.

If the Tower type does disappear, a height to cross sectional area
ratio is probably a better match to the commonly understood definition
of tower.

Tom