19 Dec 2018, 22:24 by ricoz@gmail.com:
> the OSM tag chain should be imho used only for very common things because
> each member
> of the chain will turn up as a "top level" tag in the database and taginfo.
> If used extensively for attributes I would consider it polution of the
> database
Good, thank-you!
I wasn't aware of that, but I'm not an EE and that's why I've asked to ask one:
this kind of things are much better handled by experts in the field.
But anyway I have the strong feeling that that wasn't the meaning the person
who described transformers had in is head: "/Tertiar
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 12:36, Sergio Manzi wrote:
The definition of primary v.s. secondary is about which is the exciting
> part and which is the excited part. "tertiary" is pure nonsense, AFAIK.
>
Power transformers can have tertiary windings:
https://www.electrical4u.com/tertiary-winding-of-tr
That's about windings, and of course in the primary of a 3 phase transformer
you'll generally (/there are exceptions.../) have 3 windings, but those 3
windings together make up the primary side of the transformer.
The definition of primary v.s. secondary is about which is the exciting part
and
On 2018-12-20 13:27, Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:00:20PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:I *never *heard
> of a transformer's /tertiary/, thus: try asking an electrical engineer...
> In general, a transformer can have 1..N primary windings and 1..N secondary
> windings:
>
> https://www
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:00:20PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
I *never *heard of a transformer's /tertiary/, thus: try asking an
electrical engineer...
In general, a transformer can have 1..N primary windings and 1..N
secondary windings:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/transformer/multi
On 2018-12-20 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> [...]
> it really doesn't matter, unless we would actually need those namespaces
> (i.e. they would collide by using the exact same string on the left side, to
> express something different), ...
Your "/unless/" part is what really concerns me.
Am Do., 20. Dez. 2018 um 11:53 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi :
> ... unless we start putting columns (":") into keys according to a
> different logic.
>
it really doesn't matter, unless we would actually need those namespaces
(i.e. they would collide by using the exact same string on the left side,
t
... unless we start putting columns (":") into keys according to a different
logic.
On 2018-12-20 11:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Do., 20. Dez. 2018 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Claudius Henrichs
> mailto:claudiu...@gmx.de>>:
>
> It feels like the two arguments are about stying true to how n
Am Do., 20. Dez. 2018 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Claudius Henrichs <
claudiu...@gmx.de>:
> It feels like the two arguments are about stying true to how namespaces
> are defined as a model in information technology and remaining economically
> shorter to be readable to humans. And there's not much of a c
018 um 04:01 Uhr
Von: "Sergio Manzi"
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Benefits of namespaces
François,
The discussion about this has also been brought to the forum, here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64825
I'm unsure if it is better to conti
François,
The discussion about this has also been brought to the forum, here:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64825
I'm unsure if it is better to continue it here in the ML, there in the forum,
or in both places...
On 2018-12-20 01:04, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Le mer. 19 d
Le mer. 19 déc. 2018 à 22:26, Richard a écrit :
> the OSM tag chain should be imho used only for very common things because
> each member
> of the chain will turn up as a "top level" tag in the database and
> taginfo.
>
We are using such chains in Power, Pipeline and Telecom groups. It works
wel
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> I couldn't be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion
> happening right now on this ML.
>
> I am about to finalize a tagging proposal for a new sub-tag. I am wondering
> about the pros and cons of the traditiona
Visible now! :-)
On 2018-12-19 03:30, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Thank-you Claudius,
>
> I've posted an answer in the forum, but I'm afraid it is awaiting for
> moderation (I'm new to the forum...).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2018-12-18 22:20, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
>> I couldn't be happier t
Thank-you Claudius,
I've posted an answer in the forum, but I'm afraid it is awaiting for
moderation (I'm new to the forum...).
Cheers,
Sergio
On 2018-12-18 22:20, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> I couldn't be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion
> happening right now on this M
I couldn't be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion happening right now on this ML.
I am about to finalize a tagging proposal for a new sub-tag. I am wondering about the pros and cons of the traditional "OSM tag chain" (foo=bar + bar=baz) versus "Laymans namespacing" (foo=bar + b
Am 17.12.2018 um 13:01 schrieb Paul Allen:
> ..
>
> This isn't theoretical speculation. The author of iD has, in the
> past, expressed unhappiness
> about such re-usability.
> ...
This is a specific to iD and not a general concern, and simply has to do
with that in a lot of cases iD doesn't actu
Thanks, me too! :-)
If you are interested in this kind of things, have a look at the following
(/not an exaustive list of topics, just a random one.../):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_(URN
Le lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 14:26, Sergio Manzi a écrit :
> Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude in any way: I just assumed you were the
> one who introduced the switch=* key for power lines (*and apparently I
> was wrong, you just "expanded" the information about those...)*
>
Me neither, switch=* was fi
Bonjour François,
On 2018-12-17 11:50, François Lacombe wrote:
> I own no switches.
Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude in any way: I just assumed you were the one
who introduced the switch=* key for power lines (/and apparently I was wrong,
you just "expanded" the information about those...)/
> S
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:25 AM François Lacombe
wrote:
>
> I still think that actuator=* is better than two pipeline:valve:actuator=*
> and railway:switch:actuator=* because the first is really more concise and
> reusable between valves and railway switches.
> Like I don't like fire_hydrant:posi
Hi Sergio,
Le lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 02:38, Sergio Manzi a écrit :
> Now, for the reasons for namespacing and just as an example (*it is not
> the only good reason...*), think about documentation: the documentation
> for describing a power switch should not be intermixed with the
> documentation de
BTW, if that's not clear:
* railway:switch describe/is an *object*
* fire_hydrant:position describe/is an *attribute *of the fire_hydrant
object, for which, you are right, location=* would had been correct.
On 2018-12-17 02:36, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> You are mixing correct namespacing (like
Sorry, I meant to say:
the documentation describing *railway switches* should not be intermixed with
the documentation describing power switches
On 2018-12-17 02:36, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> the documentation for describing a power switch should not be intermixed with
> the documentation describi
Hello,
You are mixing correct namespacing (like railway:switch) with... mistaken
namespacing (like hydrant:position).
Now, for the reasons for namespacing and just as an example (/it is not the
only good reason.../), think about documentation: the documentation for
describing a power switch sh
Hi
Interesting thread about namespacing in tag names.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal#Use_namespace_or_not
Spoiler: no consensus shows up at the end.
I still think that actuator=* is better than two pipeline:valve:actuator=*
and railway:switch:a
27 matches
Mail list logo