Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:59:41 +0200 > David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: > >> Thanks for the full story, Lauri. I understand now why the subject >> seems so sensitive to some. I retain from your story, if I correctly >> understood it that:* the current usage of minor_line/line is the one >> I previously suggested: use minor_line for lines mainly on poles and >> line for lines mainly on towers, with a tolerance if a line >> occasionally uses something different;* the problem of this >> modelling, which bothers some, is that it leads to a fuzzy modelling >> from a technical, power network point of view, because it doesn't >> reflect the actual usage, voltage or any technical characteristics of >> the power line;* the current usage of minor_line/line is nevertheless >> retained as it is a perceptible, beginners-friendly distinction, >> allows easy rendering, and as other essential characteristics, as >> voltage, number of cables or tower/pole shapes are already managed by >> other tags, even if some others, as the distribution/transport >> distinction, isn't modelled. Am I correct? Regards. > > Yes. I would also add that power=line/minor_line distinction is highly > useful for everybody using power lines as orientation points.
I really don't see it as a useful distinction. If one cares about support types, that's in the tags on the nodes, so it is redundant in a tag on the line. And perhaps your world is different, but here "tower" vs "pole" is not that big a deal. On a single line between substations, the type of support will change, and surely that's a cost/engineering tradeoff about ground type, space, etc. The real distinction is the kind of lines that run along almost all roads, typically on "telephone poles" of perhaps 30cm diamater that are not very high and fairly closely spaced (50m?), vs the kind of lines that tend to run not along roads and have a big swath of trees cleared (50m wide), have either vastly larger poles or towers spaced farther apart, and don't connect to houses or businesses. I am pretty sure that even people who don't pay much attention see it this way -- one is a "power line" and the other is "the wires on the telephone poles". Those at all used to power lines will immediately recognize that this is distribution vs transmission. I have no problem with power=minor_line for typical roadside lines (distribution) and power=line for more significant ones (transmission) regardless of the form of support. But putting minor_line on a 115 kV transmission line with huge poles spaced much farther apart and a cleared right of way just does not make any sense, and I am pretty sure even people who don't understand power systems wouldn't naturally do that. As for orientation, transmission lines are obvious features when navigating, whether on big poles or towers. Distribution lines are not; they are not that big, and they are usually everywhere. I think it would be fine to drop minor_line and just use line, and then have a transmission/distribution tag. Then people who are new at power lines can ignore this and others can add the detail. The other sensible thing is to define line as transmission and minor_line as distribution, accept that this will be wrong, and fix it when it is. That's how most of tagging works, where everybody uses tags and the experts in the sub-field fix things up, and it works out fine.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
