[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi smz at smz.it
Sun Mar 10 23:02:42 UTC 2019


BTW, what I incorrectly (/I knew it was wrong!/) named a "branch" of the tower is correctly named a "crossarm".

See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=466-08-12

Cheers!

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 23:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> François,
>
> Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (/some still needs some polishing I gues/s), but anyway (/and putting aside my reluctance to map such things/) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this proposal, at its very essence.
>
> I still don't understand what are *the objects* that one is expected to map with this tag.
>
> Taking as an example the first tower you depict for "line_attachment=suspension" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg) what are they? The tower (/BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?/) The "/branch/" (/sorry, I'm missing the correct word.../) of the tower/pylon to which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?
>
> Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow pointing to the object of this tag?
>
> TIA,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote:
>> 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 <mailto: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 seemsyou 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190311/4a7e41c5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3675 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190311/4a7e41c5/attachment.bin>


More information about the Tagging mailing list