[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Tue Apr 9 11:49:25 UTC 2013
2013/4/9 Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com>
> In my opinion this looks pretty nice. You still need to update the two
> examples Fukushima and Thémis - they are referring to relations and also to
> roles which are nowhere defined (perimeter was dropped, plant is not
> documented as role).
I've updated accordingly the proposal's page.
> This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify that
> a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a generator
> is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A valve a valve? A
> weir a weir? And so on.
This is just because a role must be specified.
When all features must be member of power=plant relation (because of lack
of perimeter), what role can I associate to a generator except... generator?
> I'm not sure if this is the best key to describe it, but I also don't have
> a better one for you, so lets say: it's fine ;-)
Update is still possible until the vote begin anyway.
> Finally I want to thank you for all your efforts on this topic!
Thank you for yours too.
It's a real pleasure to me.
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging