[Tagging] Are there really substations that cannot be mapped as nodes?

[François Lacombe]

Hi Mateusz,

Le lun. 30 mai 2022 à 11:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

>
> May 29, 2022, 23:55 by fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com:
>
> It won't be possible to make hundred of contained features fit on a node
> there.
>
> mapping such object as a node in the first pass mapping
> (for example - while aerial imagery is not available) is OK
>

That's valid and not what the wiki intends to regulate.

> To me, there is no point to prescript geometry affinity in wiki at the
> lowest (or limited) information level available.
>
> Well, then people claim that "it is forbidden to map XYZ as node".
>

Wiki states "it may be" or "it should not" when you roll over the icons.
Stating it forbids is false from that perspective.


> Maybe there would be benefit from extra state there, "discouraged"?
> That could go on on landuse=cemetery nodes and so on.
> (note: I am not planning to work on this)
>

onNode=no already means "it should not be used on nodes"
What discouraged would bring on top of this?


> It's valuable to prescript it with highest knowledge possible in mind.
>
> Many people edit in poorly mapped parts of world, OSM Wiki should be
> documenting OSM, not just well mapped OSM parts
>

Wiki doesn't say "it used on" but "it may be used on", which is not
documentation but prescription, clearly and that is valuable this way.
If people want to know how it is actually used, they look on taginfo, just
like we are doing there.


> many objects are not mappable as nodes at all
>

Which one please?

> Same for water=lake, deservedly discouraged on nodes in the wiki.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dlake
>
> I just edited wiki to fix this
>

Wow that's a bit quick, please revert it.
Reviewed proposal clearly states only for areas. Why did you do that ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2223203

Did you see what taginfo shows about actual usage?
More than 99% of lakes are areas.


> Finally, all this proposal is about quality control and disambiguation
> between substations and contained features.
> Defining situations where areas are preferred leads to more relevant
> quality checks.
>
> Right now it is not defining as preferred.
>
> It is not even banning use of [power=substation] (without extra tags, or
> with
> some substation=* values) on nodes.
>

No it's no banning because not desirable
*some* substation=* values are valid on nodes implies power=substation
should be valid with both nodes and areas.


>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension#Vote
> misleadingly claims that it is already banned.
>

Not at all.


> I see that it also claims that utility=power is mandatory on
> building=service housing
> substations (it is not, I mapped many building=service without adding this
> and it is fine,
> especially if I added power=substation then adding utility=power adds no
> real benefit)
> Describing it as mandatory is again pretending that consensus already
> exists.
>

This has been fixed and removed from example to make it clear about what
the point is in the proposal.
Thank you for this warning.

Cheers

François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220530/24dbe920/attachment-0001.htm>