[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Power transmission refinement

[François Lacombe]

A new item "Visible vs not" has been added to Talk and deals with the
problem of underground lines.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Visible_vs._Not

*François Lacombe*

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


2013/7/27 François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>

> Here is a mail that can be useful to see in ML.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>
> Date: 2013/7/27
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Power transmission
> refinement
> To: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/27 Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, François Lacombe <
>> francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2013/7/26 Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>
>>>
>>>> But you're changing the definition of an existing tag,
>>>> over the objections of existing mappers.  You can do better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. What's your suggestion about that ?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The basic suggestion is for you to show some public concern for matching
>> *existing* tagging practice and harmonize.
>>
>
> Thus you think that the proposal here isn't harmonizing enough ?
> Have a look to man_made=pipeline model to see how power and pipeline will
> be closer if this proposal is accepted.
>
> location is used by pipeline... not by power.
>
> Pipeline include water distribution. Those networks are maybe longer than
> power ones. Let's think about it.
>
>
>
>>  -----------------
>> In support of your proposals you could seek support from the
>> P2/JOSM/Mapnik communities to redefine the tag.  If the rendering editing
>> and wiki are all in harmony, then changing existing use is practical.
>>  Without that support the rendering is likely to lag for many years.
>>
>
> I'm convinced into rendering is more blocked by mapcss than by the tagging
> model.
> I think that tagging is central instead of rendering which only is
> peripheral. Tagging isn't only useful to render, according to what I write
> at the bottom of this message.
>
>
>
>> ------------------
>> The location tag is not usually used for visible vs. underground.  That
>> tag is layer=, well established:
>>
>> power=line
>> layer=-1  (for underground cable)
>>
>> power=line
>> layer=1  (for above-ground, the default)
>>
>>
> layer=* is mainly designed for render engines. Furthermore it introduce a
> classification. The trick here isn't to know which feature is under another
> but to know where each feature is without any vertical relation between
> them.
> According to wiki, location seems to best describe what we're looking for
> : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location
>
>
>
>> And a single transmission line may span states, countries, mountains,
>> tunnels, pylons... that can be tied together with a relation.
>>
>
> Yes, but it's the next step, which is still draft :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal
>
> Refine power=* is a big need before doing anything with power lines and
> circuits.
>
>
>> You can solve the stacking of equipment as:
>>
>> power=pole
>> power:transformer=PGE
>> power:cellular=Verizon
>> power:telephone=ATT
>> power:fiber=sonic.net
>> ref=A1235
>> operator=PGE
>>
>>
> That's what I call "dirty tricks" : power:transformer isn't introduced at
> all, there's a weird relation between power & telephone with
> power:telephone.
>
> We can create as many nodes as many power features we have to map and link
> them with power=line ways. It's also dirty but closer to official operators
> diagrams even it's not perfect.
>
> Why can't we move pole & tower to man_made=* and only use power for
> features which deserve it ?
>
> man_made=pole
> power=transformer
> operator=PGE
> operator:telephone=ATT
> operator:cellular=Verizon
> operator:power=PGE
> fiber=sonic.net
> ref:power=A1235
> ref:cellular=B7896
>
> There are many fields of knowledge which share a feature, but without any
> collision between them.
>
> As for size of facility: the practice on paper maps is to show "major"
>> power lines. The type that show up on air photos and are landmarks to
>> hikers.  The boundary may be fuzzy, but at the extremes it is clear.  A big
>> visible thing wants to appear on most renderings, and minor things don't.
>>  You need to find a way to replicate that, in order to make for good maps.
>>
>
> That's a key point : I aim to propose a robust and consistent tagging
> model to share reliable data about power networks. Not especially fancy
> maps.
> Rendering is only a single use out of many more allowed by OSM system. I
> don't know and can't even imagine what would other users do with the data I
> add to the map.
> The main part of data about power networks must be avoided by common
> rendering to reduce map cluttering... Only aerial lines and towers should
> be shown.
>
>
> Good night from France :)
>
>
> *François Lacombe*
>
> francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
> http://www.infos-reseaux.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130728/68d21f0d/attachment.html>