[Tagging] Power poles & tower : power vs man_made

François Lacombe francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Wed Aug 14 08:59:35 UTC 2013


Hi guys, many thanks for your answers.

@Martin :
It would be ok since man_made=tower is dedicated to more particular
structures than common power towers.
What about man_made=power_tower ?

We would move all tag from tower:* namespace to power_tower:* too (for
design, type, colors...)

@Pieren
I know it's not unusual and that is exactly what is disapointing me.
If many cases like this exist in DB, how would I'll be sure to get all
transformers when submitting a query to API ?

Should I take care of power=transformer, transformer=yes,
transformer:power:tower=yes, power:tower:transformer=yes,
transformer=distribution ?

I would be glad to have only one tag to map transformers wherever they are
located.
Power is complex enough to artificially complexify things.

Furthermore and more widely, it should be forbidden to create tag values
which can be found on the same node.

@Greg :
Sooner or later soft will have to adapt due to the lack of consistency of
tagging.

Not perhaps but it will be mandatory to have heavy libs to deal with such
tagging policies.



As usual, the goal here is to bring consistency, intuitive shape and
versatility to tagging as for allowing non-familiar mappers to map instead
of asking non-sense questions.


In a nutshell, the single point against deprecation is because of
statistics even if poles or tower aren't tagged like what they really are
as fly mentionned.

FYI, only in France, there are about 80k poles with transformer on top.
There are not so much nodes like this yet in db but if we setup tagging,
they will.

Any other point of view ?


*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/8/14 Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>

>
> Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net> writes:
>
> > I would prefer that you didn't pretend we will deprecate a tag so
> > widely used just so a small proportion of them can have another power
> > tag on it when we can easily just add transformer=yes or something
> > similar.
>
> I also think we shouldn't deprecate a tag in very widespread use.
> So one can either use "power=pole;transformer", or use two nodes,
> because after all the transformer's center of mass is almost certainly
> not the center of the pole.
>
> Sooner or later, data consuming programs will have to cope with
> ;-separated tags.  Perhaps there will be libraries to do this.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130814/b1cf506e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list