Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
The proposal would benefit from additional attention to lite tagging, for those not interested in the full level of detail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Hi Bryce, Did you mean you find the proposal a bit difficult to understand ? Yes it is. Nevertheless, many of tagging is optional, I can edit the document to show it in a more understandable way. This proposal doesn't prevent mappers to map large overhead transmission lines as landmark if they want to. It describe a consistent tagging scheme to allow mappers who want to get deeper in description. Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/10/9 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that. Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned. I've found the power proposal a bit much to follow... ... but have found it satisfying to map the simpler case of which street corridors have overhead vs. undergrounded wires (utilities=underground). I hope the eventual power proposal continues to have a place for those of us who map larger transmission lines as landmarks, even if the electrical characteristics are unknown or unimportant to us. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that. Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned. I've found the power proposal a bit much to follow... ... but have found it satisfying to map the simpler case of which street corridors have overhead vs. undergrounded wires (utilities=underground). I hope the eventual power proposal continues to have a place for those of us who map larger transmission lines as landmarks, even if the electrical characteristics are unknown or unimportant to us. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Hi, Please note the update of the power transmission proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement 1. Removing the man_made=pole / man_made=tower introduction - Deeper work should be done both in power and telecommunication fields to find a proper way to define supports (like tower, poles, trees, buildings, whatever) in a consistent and sustainable way that proposal can't cover. - The substation refinement proposal was accepted today and it was important to be consistent with its hosted features on poles recommendations. - Things stay as now and this topic may be come back in debate in a couple of months with a new proposal 2. Replacing cables=* and wires=* by bundles=* and conductors=* for power lines phy description as suggested by polderrunner on talk. 3. Power line description is done as strings of towers. Numerical values to describe it are always given without any circuit considerations. Circuits (I.e. path used by power to from A to B) will be described as relations in the power routing proposal (which is currently draft) and will actually accept power=line ways as member. This prevent us to put useless redundancy (and consistency errors not to mention) in database. 4. power=cable deprecation remains here. power=line aims to be the only way to describe a power line whatever its location. Please keep in mind this big change is intended to improve the system approach more than any rendering or local terminology particular case... and it's hard work. You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that. Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned. Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/23 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu Hi, I can't open voting right now since some other points are still incomplete (RFC outlined comments and it's time to find a solution). Moreover, substation refinement vote is currently opened, one thing at a time. Be sure I'm willing to propose a good solution to the multiple power instances on the same node. But it's hard work to look wide and time is currently missing for me. That's why it's not good to launch vote now too : proposal has 99% chances to be rejected regarding this point and I don't want to recap my investment to that. Sorry but the consistency thread was too big to follow it correctly :( *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/23 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition. Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal. For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices. Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't. François, another thread on this ML was opened about consensus in OSM and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice about how to fix the power tag issue when you need the key more than once (use subtags). Please, open now a vote on your proposal to get some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right direction or not. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition. Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal. For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices. Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't. François, another thread on this ML was opened about consensus in OSM and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice about how to fix the power tag issue when you need the key more than once (use subtags). Please, open now a vote on your proposal to get some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right direction or not. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Hi, I can't open voting right now since some other points are still incomplete (RFC outlined comments and it's time to find a solution). Moreover, substation refinement vote is currently opened, one thing at a time. Be sure I'm willing to propose a good solution to the multiple power instances on the same node. But it's hard work to look wide and time is currently missing for me. That's why it's not good to launch vote now too : proposal has 99% chances to be rejected regarding this point and I don't want to recap my investment to that. Sorry but the consistency thread was too big to follow it correctly :( *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/23 Pieren pier...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition. Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal. For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices. Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't. François, another thread on this ML was opened about consensus in OSM and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice about how to fix the power tag issue when you need the key more than once (use subtags). Please, open now a vote on your proposal to get some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right direction or not. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Andreas Labres wrote On 21.09.13 21:16, Ole Nielsen wrote: On 21/09/2013 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8 Million times in use). Why should we change this well established practise, which would require 4,8 Million new additional tags (tower:type=electricity) and which doesn't even help to reduce potential multivalue conflicts? At least I'd use man_made=power_tower or something similar, but IMHO if there are problems with power=tower having other infrastructure on them this should be dealt with in an alternative way possibly keeping power=tower. +1 And use tower and pole not about the voltage of line but what I see in the reality. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Power-tower-and-pole-usefulness-tp5778321p5778417.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
+1 using man_made=tower for all towers Lets show that we are flexible enough and not that conservative to fix mistakes even if they were made some years ago and if the are right now an established method. Am 21.09.2013 21:16, schrieb Ole Nielsen: On 21/09/2013 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8 Million times in use). Why should we change this well established practise, which would require 4,8 Million new additional tags (tower:type=electricity) and which doesn't even help to reduce potential multivalue conflicts? At least I'd use man_made=power_tower or something similar, but IMHO if there are problems with power=tower having other infrastructure on them this should be dealt with in an alternative way possibly keeping power=tower. I do not understand why this would not help ? tower:type=electricity does not but actual we need a tag which describes that the tower supports cables. cable_support ? The problem mentioned within this thread is that we have two proposals for tower tagging which contradict as one uses tower:type to describe the use and the other uses it to describe the construction/material. If you look at the external presets for JOSM you will find two different presets for tower + the internal one. On the wiki page tower:construction is also mentioned, which might be a way to go. Well, think we need to work on man_made=tower/pole anyway. And we will loose the elegant ability to retrieve all power features just by using a power=* query in Overpass. Well, you will not find poles and towers without connection but adopting your query should not be that hard. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Am 22/set/2013 um 15:14 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: +1 using man_made=tower for all towers are electrical towers actual towers? Do you propose to also discourage the use of water_tower? What do we gain? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Am 22.09.2013 15:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 22/set/2013 um 15:14 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: +1 using man_made=tower for all towers are electrical towers actual towers? Considering tower:type=communication - Yes. Do you propose to also discourage the use of water_tower? What do we gain? No, I can live with water_tower and communication_tower for now but actually these are towers. I could live with a new tag for towers supporting cables under man_made=* but power_tower will not work. cu fly P.s.: What about towers/poles for aerialways ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Am 22/set/2013 um 15:40 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: P.s.: What about towers/poles for aerialways ? I wouldn't tag them as man_made=tower I wouldn't tag every antenna as tower neither, but of course there are communication towers (e.g. there are some famous ones for tv). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
2013/9/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Am 22/set/2013 um 15:40 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: P.s.: What about towers/poles for aerialways ? I wouldn't tag them as man_made=tower I introduce man_made=pole if you want ;) *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
On 22 September 2013 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't tag them as man_made=tower Me neither. The typical large metal framework structures for carrying high-voltage electricity cables would be unlikely to be called towers in normal British English language usage. I would guess that most people would call them pylons. They also don't really fit with the current OSM usage of man_made=tower, so if we have to use something under man_made, I'd go for man_made=pylon. I wouldn't tag every antenna as tower neither, but of course there are communication towers (e.g. there are some famous ones for tv). I'd often use man_made=mast for tall single pole or lattice framework structures. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
what is lattice framework structure can I see a picture. and about minor_line? Da: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Inviato: Domenica 22 Settembre 2013 19:32 Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness On 22 September 2013 15:34, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't tag them as man_made=tower Me neither. The typical large metal framework structures for carrying high-voltage electricity cables would be unlikely to be called towers in normal British English language usage. I would guess that most people would call them pylons. They also don't really fit with the current OSM usage of man_made=tower, so if we have to use something under man_made, I'd go for man_made=pylon. I wouldn't tag every antenna as tower neither, but of course there are communication towers (e.g. there are some famous ones for tv). I'd often use man_made=mast for tall single pole or lattice framework structures. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
2013/9/22 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com so if we have to use something under man_made, I'd go for man_made=pylon. Why not. It's even better than power=tower IMHO. 2013/9/22 alessandro zardo bredy...@yahoo.it what is lattice framework structure can I see a picture. It's like this. http://wharferj.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/electricity-pylons-001.jpg and about minor_line? minor_line should be deprecated by power transmission refinement. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
It's like this. http://wharferj.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/electricity-pylons-001.jpg But this for me are tower. and about minor_line? minor_line should be deprecated by power transmission refinement. But It's a proposal not yet approved ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
2013/9/22 alessandro zardo bredy...@yahoo.it minor_line should be deprecated by power transmission refinement. But It's a proposal not yet approved All what we are discussing about, right now, is how things will go once this proposal would has been accepted. Even if we have minor_line currently, it's useless to find a solution for it with pole vs tower vs pylon because it may not exist anymore. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Am 22/set/2013 um 21:10 schrieb François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu: All what we are discussing about, right now, is how things will go once this proposal would has been accepted. you would need an extraordinary vote to deprecate power=tower ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition. Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal. For now *I'm just introducing man_made=tower* + tower:type=power to use it when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices. Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/22 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Am 22/set/2013 um 21:10 schrieb François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu: All what we are discussing about, right now, is how things will go once this proposal would has been accepted. you would need an extraordinary vote to deprecate power=tower ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
dieterdreist wrote I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers +1 The wiki page [1] currently states consistently in English and German that a man_made=tower is a solid building while girder frameworks are man_made=mast. A tower is a building. It makes absolutely no sense to destroy a clear definition by throwing in objects from a different domain power=* or declaring objects that currently are clearly a mast as towers. Messes up the tagging scheme, messes up all current maps that evaluate man_made=tower as a building and causes loss of information on all real towers. Changing the meaning of an established tag is always a bad idea. bye, Nop [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aman_made%3Dtower -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Power-tower-and-pole-usefulness-tp5778321p5778475.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
2013/9/21 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu Nevertheless, using man_made=tower requires to add an extra tag to give the usefulness of the tower. tower:type=* is usually used to give this information. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type#Tower_types Some power poles may be used to roll out telecoms lines. Let's use tower:type=power;communication I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8 Million times in use). Why should we change this well established practise, which would require 4,8 Million new additional tags (tower:type=electricity) and which doesn't even help to reduce potential multivalue conflicts? At least I'd use man_made=power_tower or something similar, but IMHO if there are problems with power=tower having other infrastructure on them this should be dealt with in an alternative way possibly keeping power=tower. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness
On 21/09/2013 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8 Million times in use). Why should we change this well established practise, which would require 4,8 Million new additional tags (tower:type=electricity) and which doesn't even help to reduce potential multivalue conflicts? At least I'd use man_made=power_tower or something similar, but IMHO if there are problems with power=tower having other infrastructure on them this should be dealt with in an alternative way possibly keeping power=tower. +1 And we will loose the elegant ability to retrieve all power features just by using a power=* query in Overpass. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
