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

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Sat Mar 28 00:47:24 UTC 2020


Hi and thank you Joseph,

Answers are on the Talk page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management

All the best

François

Le ven. 27 mars 2020 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> 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
> line_management=branch
>
> "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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200328/aed2a4d9/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list