Le sam. 20 oct. 2018 à 04:07, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> a écrit :
> If so, I agree, but it's been explained that this fight happened a while > ago and what we have now is the outcome. > Not exactly. I began to contribute to OSM in 2012. People already get used to line/minor_line/cable. All those tags were well established and the only pro argument was "there are too much of them, we won't change" and we are stuck in the statu quo until now We all agree on necessarily classification, but the only argument in favor of line/minor_line is they are too used to change. IEC do have distinction between line and cable but line sounds to be the most general term with or without insulation Line: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-12-27 Cable: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-12-38 No entry for any "minor" or "major" line It seems in this case the OSM way is just to use power=line, don't > worry, and let others fix it up if necessary. > That would make sense, if and only if everyone agree on definitions. They are required to be objective. In practice this can lead to editing wars since current tags are sometimes related to "small" or "big" size distinctions. All the best François > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
