[Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Dec 16 16:50:21 UTC 2014


2014-12-06 23:23 GMT+01:00 Fran├žois Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>:
>
> I guess no one should tag a single feature with both power=* and railway=*
> since they are actually separated in reality.
>


could be. I am also generally for splitting different entities into
separate objects, for the same reasons you describe below. Still with
common values like "abandoned" in the railway key, stuff becomes less
clear, and a combined object of power=* and railway=* could have its sense.



>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167556124 is an error : is it an
> abandoned railway with power feeder remaining on landscape or a power line
> built on the abandoned railway ?
> We don't know really...
>


when we don't know, we shouldn't judge ("an error").




> So tags like usage=*, location=*, operator=*, ... should be domain-less
> and get a worldwide extent for each field of knowledge which require them.
>
> operator=* sounds to be the perfect example : everyone should use them but
> all companies in the world won't operate all features.
> We didn't create power:operator and railway:operator.
>


I think there is a big difference between "operator" and "usage": the
latter is most probably intended to be a formal tag with a limited, well
defined set of values, while the former is a free text field with any value
possible. Mixing up "usage" in different contexts makes life harder for
documentation, taginfo users, etc.
Adding context by applying a namespace would help.

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141216/27b49cf4/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list