<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>Please note the update of the power transmission proposal<br><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement</a><br>
<br></div>1. Removing the man_made=pole / man_made=tower introduction<br></div>- Deeper work should be done both in power and telecommunication fields to find a proper way to define supports (like tower, poles, trees, buildings, whatever) in a consistent and sustainable way that proposal can't cover.<br>
</div>- The substation refinement proposal was accepted today and it was important to be consistent with its "hosted features on poles" recommendations.<br></div><div>- Things stay as now and this topic may be come back in debate in a couple of months with a new proposal<br>
</div><div><br></div>2. Replacing cables=* and wires=* by bundles=* and conductors=* for power lines phy description as suggested by polderrunner on talk.<br><br></div><div>3. Power line description is done as "strings of towers".<br>
</div><div>Numerical values to describe it are always given without any circuit considerations.<br></div><div>Circuits (I.e. path used by power to from A to B) will be described as relations in the power routing proposal (which is currently draft) and will actually accept power=line ways as member.<br>
</div><div>This prevent us to put useless redundancy (and consistency errors not to mention) in database.<br><br></div><div>4. power=cable deprecation remains here. power=line aims to be the only way to describe a power line whatever its location.<br>
</div><div>Please keep in mind this big change is intended to improve the "system" approach more than any rendering or local terminology particular case... and it's hard work.<br><br></div><div>You can send me any formal and constructive suggestion about that.<br>
</div><div>Vote will begin shortly. Stay tuned.<br><br></div><div>Cheers.<br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><b>François Lacombe</b><br><br>francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu<br>
<a href="http://www.infos-reseaux.com" target="_blank">http://www.infos-reseaux.com</a><br></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/9/23 François Lacombe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francois.lacombe@telecom-bretagne.eu" target="_blank">francois.lacombe@telecom-bretagne.eu</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>I can't open voting right now since some other points are still incomplete (RFC outlined comments and it's time to find a solution).<br></div>Moreover, substation refinement vote is currently opened, one thing at a time.<br>
<br></div>Be sure I'm willing to propose a good solution to the multiple power instances on the same node.<br></div><div>But it's hard work to look wide and time is currently missing for me.<br></div><div>That's why it's not good to launch vote now too : proposal has 99% chances to be rejected regarding this point and I don't want to recap my investment to that.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Sorry but the "consistency thread" was too big to follow it correctly :(<br></div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="im"><br clear="all"><div>
<b>François Lacombe</b><br>
<br>francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu<br><a href="http://www.infos-reseaux.com" target="_blank">http://www.infos-reseaux.com</a><br></div>
<br><br></div><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/9/23 Pieren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com" target="_blank">pieren3@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, François Lacombe<br>
<div>> Deprecating power=tower and power=pole was my first proposition.<br>
> Many people goes against it and then I refined the proposal.<br>
> For now I'm just introducing man_made=tower + tower:type=power to use it<br>
> when power=* is needed to describe hosted devices.<br>
> Thus, man_made=tower doesn't seem to be the perfect solution, so let's try<br>
> to find it but the topic isn't to deprecate power=tower because it won't.<br>
<br>
</div>François, another thread on this ML was opened about "consensus in<br>
OSM" and raised some inconsistencyies in our taging documentation. And<br>
now, you are creating a new inconsistency. You already got some advice<br>
about how to fix the "power" tag issue when you need the key more than<br>
once (use subtags). Please, open now a "vote" on your proposal to get<br>
some feedback from a larger audience and see if you are in the right<br>
direction or not.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Pieren<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>