[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Overhead lines management (consecutive to line_attachment)

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 00:53:20 UTC 2020

The explanation of line_management=branch is not very clear:

"==Loops are actual branches==
Former undocumented key {{Tag|branch:type}} had a value for
connections between several power lines coming from the same
direction: ''loop''.

"It is proposed to consider them as branches due to
[http://osm.janos-koenig.de/IMG_0046.JPG such situations] where 3
lines connect to the same support and look like a loop but shouldn't
be described this way."

What does this mean?

Another part says:

tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=loop) -> to be replaced by

"Two or more independent circuits are connected in the same direction
to maintain a dead part of the network under a positive voltage"

What's a dead part of the network? What do you mean by positive
voltage, can voltage be negative?

Also, it's mentioned that tower:type=crossing (where a power line
crosses a river or canyon) should be replaced by height=* + designe=*
where "A support is significantly higher and stronger to allow a line
to cross an obstacle like rivers"

Are you proposing any new values of "design=*" for this, or should
existing values be used?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/27/20, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> The line_management=* proposal vote will be open starting on next Monday.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
> 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
> François
> 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
>> ground
>> Thanks in advance
>> François
>> 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.
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
>>> 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
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
>>> 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
>>> François

More information about the Tagging mailing list