BTW, what I incorrectly (/I knew it was wrong!/) named a "branch" of the tower is correctly named a "crossarm".
See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=466-08-12 Cheers! Sergio On 2019-03-10 23:02, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > François, > > Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (/some still needs some > polishing I gues/s), but anyway (/and putting aside my reluctance to map such > things/) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this > proposal, at its very essence. > > I still don't understand what are *the objects* that one is expected to map > with this tag. > > Taking as an example the first tower you depict for > "line_attachment=suspension" > (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg) > what are they? The tower (/BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?/) The > "/branch/" (/sorry, I'm missing the correct word.../) of the tower/pylon to > which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending > the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The > clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets? > > Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow > pointing to the object of this tag? > > TIA, > > Sergio > > > On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote: >> Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here >> >> Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi <s...@smz.it <mailto:s...@smz.it>> >> a écrit : >> >> *A) **Scope of the proposal.* >> >> It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "/Consistently >> defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting >> pole or tower/", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you >> state that "/This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities network//s/". >> Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating >> that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different >> application fields later on? >> >> As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done >> in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is >> done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, >> the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the >> overhead line of an electric railway (/and I have the strong feeling tha >> "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact >> lines/), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes. >> >> Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by >> further proposals. >> It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able >> to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance. >> >> Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an >> anchorage is still an anchorage. >> Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on >> >> *B) **Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.* >> >> Solved, proposed renamed accordingly. >> >> >> *C) **Are we really talking about "Clamps"?* >> >> The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and >> "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what >> in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a >> "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp". >> >> Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values. >> As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any >> supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and >> so on. >> The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, >> anchorage and shackles. >> >> The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal >> you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a >> totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin >> insulators" (IEC 471-03-06). >> >> Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from >> suspension and anchors/tensions. >> >> So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (/or >> insulator sets/) here? Because it really seemsyou are mixing under the same >> tag two very different kind of objects... >> >> We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare >> power conductors. >> >> And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts >> when it comes to it? >> >> Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current >> proposal. >> >> *D) Inaccurate wording. *Some examples: >> >> * You state that "anchor_clamp" is "/built stronger than suspension >> tower//s/". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/ >> >> You're confused in your own reading. >> First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and >> second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built stronger >> than a suspension one. >> Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear. >> >> * "/A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from >> their support/" Isn't that the meaning of the life of *every* insulator? >> >> ... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention. >> >> *E) Logical mishaps* >> >> In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of >> conductors (/3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right"//watching the >> image/), you state that "/Values would go _from right to lef_//_t_ / top to >> down of the pole while values in each section would be given _from left to >> right_ in the direction of the way passing by the support node/". I _really_ >> don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking, but right and >> left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite side? (/and >> yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a different meaning in >> OSM tagging/) >> >> Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten. >> >> Regards, >> François >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
