Hi David, Am 09.03.2017 um 06:35 schrieb David Marchal: >> Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert <naka...@gmx.net> a écrit : >> >> Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on >> every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V). >> > Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation binding > the distribution network elements: the connections between them can be > retrieved from the nodes and ways, and the relation would merely be use for > group tagging. IMHO, the relation would only make sense for transport lines, > which are often viewed and treated as continuous, even if their > characteristics change along their path (overhead, underground…). At a > distribution level, however, this sounds overkill to me.
I am not against the usage of power route relations in general. There are lots of cases where they are useful. The Elbekreuzung 2 (Elbe Crossing 2) is a simple and nice example why they are necessary: Most cables of that line are 380 kV AC but four of them are used by DB Energie GmbH for their 110 kV 16.7 Hz to supply traction current for the electrified railway line(s) in Schleswig-Holstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Crossing_2 I just don't like the necessity to add route relations to every power line just to indicate its frequency. Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
