2014-12-16 23:42 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
>> I think there is a big difference between "operator" and "usage": the latter
>> is most probably intended to be a formal tag with a limited, well defined
>> set of values, while the former is a free text field with any value possible.
>> Mixing up "
2014-12-16 17:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> could be. I am also generally for splitting different entities into
> separate objects, for the same reasons you describe below. Still with
> common values like "abandoned" in the railway key, stuff becomes less
> clear, and a combined object of
2014-12-06 23:23 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
>
> I guess no one should tag a single feature with both power=* and railway=*
> since they are actually separated in reality.
>
could be. I am also generally for splitting different entities into
separate objects, for the same reasons you describe be
I guess no one should tag a single feature with both power=* and railway=*
since they are actually separated in reality.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167556124 is an error : is it an abandoned
railway with power feeder remaining on landscape or a power line built on
the abandoned railway ?
We
2014-12-03 19:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :
> I do not know why anyone should tag one OSM way both with power=* and
> railway=*.
>
here are some examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167556124
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167556076
and some more ways:
12279208
102605934
102605956
2014-12-04 1:42 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
> just imagine a city like vienna, drawing one or more man_made=pipeline
>> ways parallel to nearly every highway=* - a nightmare, editing-wise.
>>
>> in these cases, it would be better to use the already existing
>> highway=* way and also tag it as man
pipeline and highway on the same element is a poor idea. Lets start from
fact that underground pipeline
should be tagged with location=underground.
2014-12-03 23:14 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>
>
> MR> I do not know why anyone should tag one OSM way both with power=* and
> MR> railway=*.
>
> a
Thank you Michael for your contribution and clear examples.
2014-12-03 23:14 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>
> just imagine a city like vienna, drawing one or more man_made=pipeline
> ways parallel to nearly every highway=* - a nightmare, editing-wise.
>
> in these cases, it would be better to u
MR> I do not know why anyone should tag one OSM way both with power=* and
MR> railway=*.
and here I contradict my own oppinion:
In many cities, there's a gas pipeline running under (almost) every
street, providing gas to domestic homes (as do water, sewage ...)
just imagine a city like vienna,
let me sum this up:
- loop=yes, a technical term in use and accepted by the pipeline
industry ("loop configuration"), was "voted down" in favour of a more
generic term, that can also be used in other areas (flow_direction=*).
and also not to have one more tag.
- mount=* was abandoned in favour o
Hi,
Am 2014-11-23 um 23:09 schrieb François Lacombe:
> As suggested on Talk page of Power transmission refinement proposal, power
> lines and cable should be described with a key giving their usage in the
> network.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_re
2014-12-03 19:19 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
> since all features concerned by my proposal and railway one will be tagged
> with power=* or railway=*
yes, and some will be tagged with power=* and railway=* and that's where
the fun begins...
cheers,
Martin
I understand your points but not convinced at all.
Railway guys did it right.
For me, the best example is the location=* tag as mentioned before.
It is actually used in many fields of knowledge, with different and maybe
specific values for each.
No namespace was introduced and all values shouldn'
LS> I agree with you if you say that usage
LS> sounds like a very general key and not a railway specific key. So the
LS> railway guys have just been a little faster than the power guys and
LS> occupied this key. I would accept this and search another key to avoid
LS> unnecessary conflicts. I d
2014-12-02 8:04 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer :
> I agree with you if you say that “usage” sounds like a very general key
> and not a railway specific key. So the railway guys have just been a little
> faster than the power guys and “occupied” this key.
>
although it would have been better also for a r
Hm. I think the railway guys have a clearly defined list of possible values
(there are 6 possible values in the wiki). This way software can process
the data, because it is known which values are valid and which not.
Checking this would be much more difficult (for data comsumers, but also
for edito
Hi Lukas,
I don't like this : railway guys introduced usage without any namespace.
Why should power introduce one ?
usage=* is a common tag. The proposal isn't introducing power:location
instead of location=* even if there is some specific values.
Do you agree ?
*François Lacombe*
fl dot infos
Maybe we could use a key with a namespace: “power:usage=*” or something
else. Keeping is separate from the railway usage could give us more
clairity.
Lukas Sommer
2014-11-24 15:24 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe :
> Hi Rainer and thank you.
>
> I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeli
Hi Rainer and thank you.
I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal but be
sure I will.
What were the concern against network=* tag ?
If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join you
to use the same between power transmission and pipelines.
Che
hi,
FL> I knew usage=* and it can be the ideal key to indicate usage=transmission,
FL> usage=distribution,... on power lines or power cables.
If I'm not mistaken, this key is intended to serve the same purpose
as the network=* key is in the pipeline proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
20 matches
Mail list logo
