[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 22:19:19 UTC 2019
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 22:50, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
> Le mer. 28 août 2019 à 19:09, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Nope, Ingress Protection. It's an international standard, though.
> Thats a detail, official document stands for International Protection
> https://texa-co.ir/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IEC-60529.pdf (see §4 page
You're right. I've only ever encountered "IP" expanded as Ingress
Protection, which makes
sense. Now I've done some digging, I found the Wikipedia talk page where
the authors of the standard made an error. One commenter pointed out that
Protection" would be about preventing warfare. Another commenter said that
worked on translating a standard he encountered many errors. Even so, the
document covering testing of enclosures for the degree of protection they
offer to the
ingress of liquids and particulates says, as an aside, that IP stands for
Protection" and not the "Ingress Protection" that would make more sense.
If we can avoid confusion, we should. I'm not sure that this does.
> It requires at least a strong context to not be confused with any other
> protection classification system.
To be honest, I'd not expect a national park to be protected from liquid or
nor an electrical enclosure to impose restrictions on building houses
within it. Nor do I expect
even micro-mappers to document the IP rating of electrical enclosures they
map. The only
thing we really need to worry about is namespace collision, and that's
usually dealt with by
a first-come/first-served approach.
Let's see if Kevin wishes to take care of this
If he can, that would be good. If he can't, then anyone who needs to map
Protection rating of electrical enclosures will have to come up with a
different tag. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging