2013/1/25 Martin Vonwald (imagic) <imagic....@gmail.com> > Am 25.01.2013 um 20:23 schrieb Ole Nielsen <on-...@xs4all.nl>: > > > It is a little bit sad that the proposal > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinementdied > due to lack of votes. It would have resolved these problems. Maybe > somebody could review and eventually improve it and put it forward for a > new vote (this time advertised properly). > > I definitively would support this! Maybe we should just reopen it for RFC > for a month or two and then put it up for a vote. >
So do I! About power=generator, according to the don-vip's proposal, it's the same as substations. Areas covering the facility is tagged with power=plant whereas generators (nodal) are described with power=generator right in the power=plant area. Although, a big power plant with many different generation mediums would have many power=generators with different source=* tags. In substations there're an area with power=sub_station (or substation, it depends of what is adopted) and transformers in it. The voltage difference must definetly be written in a voltage=* tag, not by the type of substation in the power tag. Two other similar situations, regarding power lines. I've started a talk around the deprecation of power=cable here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dcable for the same reasons. In a functional way of thinking, location must be brought by another tag, location=* obviously, not by a value of power=* because it's still a power line matter. The second one concern the values minor_* like power=miinor_line, power=minor_cable... Shouldn't we use two tags instead of only one to specify such information? These issues had to be discussed in an overall proposal. Cheers. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
