[Tagging] Power Tagging
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 12:14:03 GMT 2013
2013/2/3 Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com>:
> For reference, see the International Electrotechnical Commission (
> http://www.iec.ch/about/ ) Electropedia ( http://www.electropedia.org/ ) or
> from the Glossary search at ( http://std.iec.ch/glossary ), to the
> Overhead lines / Towers description page (
> http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=466-08-08 )
> where we see a diagram (
> ) and nomenclature in multiple languages: (English) double warren redundant
> support, (French) triangulation en losange, (Arabic) تركيبة عل شكل المعين ,
> (German) Ausfachung mit gekreuzten Diagonalen und Sekundärfachwerk,
> (Spanish) celosía doble, (Italian) tralicciatura doppia con rompitratta,
> (Japanese) ダブルワーレン補助材, (Portuguese) reticulação em losango, (Swedish) dubbel
> diagonalvandring med knäckavstyvning.
if you are asking what might be a key for these, I'd use
tower:structure or similar. They are not details regarding "power" but
the structure of the support.
> It is true that these standard vocabularies drill down to excruciating
> detail which may not be relevant to OSM ( characteristics which are visible
> (or inferred, like voltage from the in out conductor spacing) .
well, for us it is relevant what interests the mappers ("anything you
> While I get that crowd generated attribute tagging has some unique
> advantages, huge flexibility, allows whatever level of detail in any
> language to be incorporates, at the other end of the pipe are editing tools,
> maintenance bots, and rendering engines which do expect some sort of
yes, that's the classic balance act we have to master somehow.
Preferably when you want to invent a new tag for which you don't find
yet documentation (and use) you will ask on one of the lists if there
is already someone using a tagging scheme for this. That way you can
be more confident that you haven't overlooked already in use tags and
reduce the possibility of creating duplicates.
> There might be some advantages to at least examining these
> vocabularies ( like the IEC). For instance, it might be revealed that a
> proposed tag might actually be several additional tags ( I usually can't see
> every possible variation when looking at a specific case). As dedicated
> user communities seek to add their own tags, there would be a path to add
> more level of detail without breaking downstream tools.
+1, issues of copyright might come into play though
> Expanding tag sets
> to other languages is somewhat easier because the basic objects and concepts
> are already translated.
sometimes (in technical fields most probably, in other areas sometimes
there is lack or different concepts not directly associable, just have
a look at wikipedia interlanguage links to see the problems)
> There are several excellent one for LULC (Land Use and
> Land Cover) for example.
which is exactly the problem: there are several of them. There is not
the one and only true classification system, there are different
approaches (also depending on the method and scale of the data
collection and the level of detail). Not even the classification of
legally permitted land use is equal in different legislations, even
less that of the effective land use (=our tag landuse).
There are fundamental cultural differences (e.g. I remember
discussions with Americans for whom the craft tag seemed a peripheral
tag for artisans, while for Germans it was one of the main tags to
describe their environment (most of what they use it for would be
considered "industrial" by an American)).
More information about the Tagging