[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

 Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it> a écrit :

> *A) **Scope of the proposal.*
>
> It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "*Consistently defining
> how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or
> tower*", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you
> state that "*This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities network**s*".
> Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating
> that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different
> application fields later on?
>
> As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in
> terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is
> done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line,
> the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the
> overhead line of an electric railway (*and I have the strong feeling tha
> "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact
> lines*), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.
>
Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by
further proposals.
It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able
to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.

Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an
anchorage is still an anchorage.
Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on

*B) **Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.*
>
Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.


> *C) **Are we really talking about "Clamps"?*
> The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and
> "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what
> in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a
> "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
>
Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any
supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and
so on.
The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension,
anchorage and shackles.

> The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you
> refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a
> totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin
> insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).
>
Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ
from suspension and anchors/tensions.

> So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (*or
> insulator sets*) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the
> same tag two very different kind of objects...
>
We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare
power conductors.

> And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts
> when it comes to it?
>
Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current
proposal.

*D) Inaccurate wording. *Some examples:
>
>    - You state that "anchor_clamp" is "*built stronger than suspension
>    tower**s*". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
>
> You're confused in your own reading.
First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and
second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built
stronger than a suspension one.
Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.

>
>    - "*A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from
>    their support*" Isn't that the meaning of the life of *every*
>    insulator?
>
> ... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention.

*E) Logical mishaps*
>
> In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of
> conductors (*3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right"** watching the
> image*), you state that "*Values would go from right to lef**t / top to
> down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to
> right in the direction of the way passing by the support node*". I
> *really* don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking,
> but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite
> side? (*and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a
> different meaning in OSM tagging*)
>
Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten.

Regards,
François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190310/ef58c924/attachment.html>