[OSM-talk] power=line
According to the "map features" the tag power=line may be completed by a tag "wires=single|double|triple|quad". I have some doubts about the meaning of "wires" in this case. "Map features" say about the "wires" tag: > Number of wires per power cable. "single" (1), "double" (2), "triple" (3) > or "quad" (4). The number of cables may be specified using power=cables. Obviously "power=cables" is a mistake; it should probably be "cables=[number]". Please could some native speakers tell me whether this interpretation is correct: A "power line" is a set of cables hanging between "power towers"; each cable may consist of one or more wires. Thus a German 110 kV line named "0802" with 6 cables [plus one neutral conductor?], each consisting of a single wire, may be tagged as: power=line cables=6 wires=single ref=0802 Because of the scarce documentation of "power=cables" some people started to tag e.g. "wires=6*single". I think this should be changed to cable=6, wires=single. Am I right? Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] power=line
Ed Loach wrote: > Hatto wrote: > >> Because of the scarce documentation of "power=cables" some >> people started to tag e.g. "wires=6*single". I think this should be >> changed to cable=6, wires=single. Am I right? > > I think you are correct (assuming you meant cables=6). The photo on > the Key:power wiki page I would tag as power=line, cables=6, > wires=double. I don't believe the single cable along the very top of > the pylons carries power, though stand to be corrected. I believed > it was for signalling, or earthing, or both - certainly there > doesn't seem to be any insulator. > > Perhaps worth correcting the Key:power wiki page? I have just done that. Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
talk@openstreetmap.org
Russ Nelson wrote: > On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: > >> I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they >> have to give way to other users. > > Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter > of the laws of physics. At least here in Germany there are cycleways which are not allowed for pedestrians and others which are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. > But maybe there are dedicated cycleways in some places where pedestrians > enter at the risk of their lives? In some places (e.g. in Munich) it is the life of the cyclist which is risked by pedestrians entering the cyclelists' exclusive track ... Bye, Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Wallace wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard > Mann wrote: >> >> The deprecation of footway/cycleway was >> voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was >> rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer. > > It was? Maybe that was before my time. On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path you may count how many people approved the proposal but explicitly opposed the deprecation of existing tags. Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/13 Nop : >> Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication >> Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated >> are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give >> information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. >> Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of >> road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. >> >> This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but >> real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an "official" or >> changing designated to official if appropriate. > > IMHO if this solution is chosen we should also deprecate "designated", > as it is of no more use, and would just lead to possible problems when > contradictory to official. I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace "designated" by "official"? I do not see that "designated" has been used in the past with a meaning differing from what "official" would be used for in future. Or did I miss anything in this discussion? Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop wrote: > Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: >> >> I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace "designated" by "official"? >> I do not see that "designated" has been used in the past with a meaning >> differing from what "official" would be used for in future. > Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there are about 5 different > interpretations on what it means, all of them documented somewhere in > the Wiki. You are exaggerating. They all say something like "specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport." > Official is new and has only one meaning. >From Map features: "official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign." I really do not see where the use of "designated" has differed from this definition. Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop wrote: > Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: >> >>> Official is new and has only one meaning. >> >>>From Map features: "official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode >>>of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign." >> >> I really do not see where the use of "designated" has differed from this >> definition. > > Which of the 5 definitions of designated do you mean? :-) *You* talked about 5 different meanings documented in the wiki. I found that all of them say something like "specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport." You missed my central point when you skipped this phrase in your answer. > Just read this topic from the beginning and you should understand. I have read most of this discussion - but instead of reading it twice I prefer to go out for mapping some cycleways ... By the way: Just read http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2008-December/031057.html (and the following discussion) and you should understand what I mean. Bye, Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
