[Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 08:45:25 UTC 2018
On 16/10/18 18:47, François Lacombe wrote:
> Le mar. 16 oct. 2018 à 00:20, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com
> <mailto:gdt at lexort.com>> a écrit :
> So I don't see how we can make "insulated" a big deal in tagging,
> defining the top-level tag, rather than being a detail to add when
For me a single 'line' is one conductor, where as a cable will be more
than one conductor.
Usually the difference can be seen at the ends - where a cable is split
into the separate conductors.
High voltage things tend to be lines, cheaper I guess.
> I agree with both of you Greg and Marc
> Nevertheless, this was a debate in 2013 and I was in favor to merge
> line, cable and minor_line
> Due to power=cable and power=line usage in OSM, many contributors
> didn't want to mass retag power=cable.
> Then we all agreed on line/cable distinction in late 2014 or 2015.
> Note that insulation is also a draft proposal
> I'm still opposed to minor_line since in merge several different
> concept in one value, and is only useful for rendering.
> That said, I fully support your notion of tagging voltage, so that
> low-voltage lines can be rendered only at extreme zooms, and to
> assume a
> line is low voltage (240V seems like a reasonable default
> assumption in
> terms of controlling rendering) if not tagged.
> Great, should we open an issue on carto github to propose to lower the
> rendering of cables without voltage?
Make a default value of 240 v for lines that have no voltage tag?
That would work and motivate some to add the voltage tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging