[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Overhead lines management (consecutive to line_attachment)
fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 00:04:24 UTC 2020
The line_management=* proposal vote will be open starting on next Monday.
Clarifications and improvements have been made as follow :
* Focus on power only and remove telecom usecase. Proposed terminology is
generic enough to be used in telecom sector in a further proposal to give
better solutions to tag telecom supports.
* Remove line_management=loop and consider them as line_management=branch
Proposed key has been used by 6 people on ~450 features already without big
problems it seems.
Feel free to raise concerns or wait next week to vote on the document.
All the best
Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 01:08, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
a écrit :
> Hi all,
> This proposal is still in RFC and may be voted in a couple of weeks as
> evaluation shown no issue so far, at least on transmission power lines.
> line_management tag is used carefully for testing.
> Read more : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
> Nevertheless it's an opportunity to review the branch:type tag replacement
> with line_management=*
> i'm still looking for an appropriate illustration for two values examples:
> * line_management=cross (two or more lines with different directions
> sharing the same support without connecting)
> * line_management=loop (two or more lines coming from the same direction
> are connected as to mock some of them)
> Feel free to propose and complete if you find corresponding situations on
> Thanks in advance
> Le sam. 26 oct. 2019 à 20:59, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>> After the review of line_attachment key this summer and Karlsruhe
>> hackweekend at Geofabrik headquarters last week, let me introduce the
>> second stage of tower:type key cleaning project for power lines. Great time
>> has been spent on discussing and finding relevant situations.
>> It's now about the arrangement of power lines around their supports: how
>> the lines branch, split, transpose or terminate.
>> As current tagging (without line_management) still collides with any
>> tower building function, the line_management key may be a solution to strip
>> unrelated values from tower:type.
>> I've published a diary entry to give more explanations
>> I'd draw your attention to the conclusion :
>> "Mapping utility supports like power towers or telecom poles is a
>> worldwide challenge. For instance in France, professionals including
>> operators and contractors rolling out overhead telecom cables are currently
>> looking for approx. 16 millions missing shared power poles that weren’t
>> mapped in operational GIS. There’s no doubt updating OSM can help."
>> There's no short term risk of importing massive data, at least.
>> This proposal is a first try and may cause worries about some local
>> concerns. RFC is here to solve this prior to vote anything.
>> We have to focus on simple situations to begin with to adopt the right
>> semantic. More complex cases will be added step by step.
>> Feel free to open a topic in Talk page.
>> All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging