Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi. There were some contributions on the Talk page of power=cable but no consensus so far. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dcable In my opinion I would choose tagging model consistency by deprecating power=cable usage for describing underground power lines. Please consider this side of the deal properly. If the model is consistent, all mappers (young, old, common, expert, etc...) would be able to understand what matters. On the contrary, if we have many values distinguished by arbitrary considerations then I think it won't work except for persons who set up these considerations. Even if contributors use wrong values, OSM tool chain is here to highlight errors and tagging mailing list is here to help them. That's why we must make a choice to update once a for all these tools. Many persons use some tags just because they're part of editors' presets. These presets should be updated with the current values. Thanks to take time to think about it. Regards. 2013/1/18 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu Hi. I follow the suggestion of Oligo. The discussion continues on the cable tag's page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dcable). Regards. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi. I follow the suggestion of Oligo. The discussion continues on the cable tag's page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dcable). Regards. 2013/1/17 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu Yes you're right. But I location values list sould be completed to match the proper one the mapper think, obviously. For Nord Stream, it would be location=underwater http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream For IFA2000, the power connection between France and GB, it would be location=underground. http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/pdf_zip/presse/dp-2006/dp_ifa_30_11_2006.pdf location=* seems better and more precise to describe several situations than power=cable. 2013/1/17 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com 2013/1/17 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu It can be underground, overground and underwater. I would prefer seafloor instead of underwater. If it is drawn over water, and you put underground that means it's dug into the sea floor. Underwater can be anything from levitating at 1m below surface to 3km under sea floor. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi folks, Here is a similar type of infrastructure : pipelines. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline It can be underground, overground and underwater. Like electric lines, building such things require different techniques because of location. Alaska pipeline, mainly overground needs to be heated to avoid oil from freezing right in the pipe. Caucasian ones need to be underground. etc... Different implementations but one only tag. Think about it. 2013/1/17 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu I don't see any thing against using level=* to solve some rendering issues. Feature-independance is maybe the key for more simplicity and versatility. As location=underground is one other example. power=cable isn't feature independent at all, are we? 2013/1/16 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at least layer=±3 (1). Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a bridge :-) Cheers, André. (1) which should have been called level in my mind. BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. (2) which is working around its mistakes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
2013/1/17 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu It can be underground, overground and underwater. I would prefer seafloor instead of underwater. If it is drawn over water, and you put underground that means it's dug into the sea floor. Underwater can be anything from levitating at 1m below surface to 3km under sea floor. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Yes you're right. But I location values list sould be completed to match the proper one the mapper think, obviously. For Nord Stream, it would be location=underwater http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream For IFA2000, the power connection between France and GB, it would be location=underground. http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/pdf_zip/presse/dp-2006/dp_ifa_30_11_2006.pdf location=* seems better and more precise to describe several situations than power=cable. 2013/1/17 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com 2013/1/17 François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu It can be underground, overground and underwater. I would prefer seafloor instead of underwater. If it is drawn over water, and you put underground that means it's dug into the sea floor. Underwater can be anything from levitating at 1m below surface to 3km under sea floor. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground, Vol 40, Issue 30
Hi. 2013/1/15 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl How do we recognize the connections between the sations ? Or is the data added by external sources as mentioned ? Do you mean when you see line lines go underground inside the stations? Sometimes it's write down on cables and you can read it (the name of end point + number of line). Otherwise, maps could be published by operators : http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/images/projets/plaquette_riverain_VDEF.pdf But something else crossed my mind. What do we do with the other underground transport systems, like oil (sometimes secret military lines) natural or industrial gas and waste and drinking water ? I search for it but no WIKI solution IMHO. Greetz There are something about it on the wiki, Power Networks page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Power_networks#Pipelines 2013/1/16 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl Thanks, I didnt use the right key word to see the tags. But the way of a underground line remains secret to most of us if the data isnt backup by extrenals. I doubt to draw a powerline straight between to substations ! Greetz If you don't have a clue, don't map it, that's wiser. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
I think that if we map underground cables with power=line, location=underground we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put power=cable they will not render it, and everything is ok. There are three cables in the air as well. I'm sure we will find an example of a powerline drawn with 3 lines :) And I'm not sure if I could defend deleting those two. They are there. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi Janko. Earlier this month, I asked to french list why only lines are mapped instead of circuits. The answer was Mapping cricuits by two parallels ways more of the time is useless and not efficient. We'd better mapping lines. Furthermore, we have relations to document circuits through power grid and this answer was really the good one. It's consistent to do the same for cables vs lines. All topics on wiki deals with reification of lines, not for cables. I think consistency is more important than all particular situations we can find. You find a deal for the renderer. But as a raw data consumer, It will be mandatory for me to find all the combinations to describe a line. It's not simpler. 2013/1/16 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I think that if we map underground cables with power=line, location=underground we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put power=cable they will not render it, and everything is ok. There are three cables in the air as well. I'm sure we will find an example of a powerline drawn with 3 lines :) And I'm not sure if I could defend deleting those two. They are there. Janko Mihelić ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-16 14:24, Janko Mihelić wrote : I think that if we map underground cables with power=line, location=underground we will expect too much from renderers that don't want to think too much about this. If you put power=cable they will not render it, and everything is ok. I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at least layer=±3 (1). Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a bridge :-) Cheers, André. (1) which should have been called level in my mind. BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. (2) which is working around its mistakes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
I don't see any thing against using level=* to solve some rendering issues. Feature-independance is maybe the key for more simplicity and versatility. As location=underground is one other example. power=cable isn't feature independent at all, are we? 2013/1/16 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com I'm somewhat of a tourist in this thread (if you didn't notice) but I can't help wondering why these lines aka cables are not tagged with at least layer=±3 (1). Now, if we do not want the non-specialized renderer to be updated with each new feature, the best is a tag telling whether a underground hidden object has to be rendered with a dotted line. This is not tagging for the renderer (2), it is making an OSMap. This is the same feature-independence reasoning as saying that bridges are black objects a little wider than the road, just that, and tagged at level road-1, thus supporting the road without interrupting nor hiding it (as done at legacy level +1) and extending two black stripes to each side. While bridge=yes was OK, I have had rendering problems with bridge=culvert and I'm wondering why the renderer is messing in the hidden underskirt of a bridge :-) Cheers, André. (1) which should have been called level in my mind. BTW, wiki/Layer had better say that the ground at Earth surface is layer 0. (2) which is working around its mistakes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Subject: Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 22 Message: 3 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:24:42 +0100 From: Fran?ois Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] [Proposed features/Power] Difference between aerial and underground power lines Message-ID: CAG0ygLcL4hSxqWanRpH1OiE4t2jO=shnpuwze1ubhzt-fqq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 My basic proposal is to use power=line + location=underground instead of power=cable + location=underground. Because it would be difficult to make request with location=underground negation as for obtaining only plain aerial lines, we can use different power=* tag too for aerial and underground lines. With or without location=underground. It's hard to make a choice. What are the tagging expert's or proposal author's opinion? The goal is to obtain a well documented topology of power grids. It's important to use the right vocabulary even if it seems to be dumb or engineering stuff. Hi Francois,Excuse but despite of all the technical remarks you made, if a powerline goes underground, why bother to tag it, theyre not visible though ? I might be a NB but I got the message please tag all visible items in OSM. I even look surprised finding community borders and residential areas on the map. I wont start adding a large tube for the export of LNG or oil from here to there. Although it has some visible marks every now and then for live aircontrol of the transport system. And if you really want to proceed do you ad the dept of the line excactly ? My advise is dont do or make youre own map OSM based map on the outcome of external or your own contributions, since you cant do it yourself all alone in the end. Greetings, Hendrik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
2013/1/15 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Excuse but despite of all the technical remarks you made, if a powerline goes underground, why bother to tag it, theyre not visible though ? I might be a NB but I got the message please tag all visible items in OSM. I even look surprised finding community borders and residential areas on the map. The rule is to tag ground truth, that is what is on (but IMHO also below or above) the ground. It doesn't have to be visible, it must be somehow there (and someone else should be able to verify it, but this could also be by reading some publicly available sources for instance). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Hi Martin Hendrik, Nowadays, undergound power lines are part of large electric systems and are as important as aerial ones. Cartography them (and make data free on OSM) is a good way to bring reliable information about these contiental electric systems. Moreover, some projects didn't wait for me to get in business. The aim of my proposal is to refine the tagging model, not to create new for the moment. There're many ways to get data about underground lines and the best is still to watch the digging works and take photos. Regards. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/1/15 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2013/1/15 St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl: Excuse but despite of all the technical remarks you made, if a powerline goes underground, why bother to tag it, theyre not visible though ? I might be a NB but I got the message please tag all visible items in OSM. I even look surprised finding community borders and residential areas on the map. The rule is to tag ground truth, that is what is on (but IMHO also below or above) the ground. It doesn't have to be visible, it must be somehow there (and someone else should be able to verify it, but this could also be by reading some publicly available sources for instance). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
In English, overground power transmission is done by overground power *lines *(strands of metal without insulation, using the air as insulator), underground power transmission is done by means of underground power *cables * (strands of metal with insulation) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission, #Underground transmission) For that reason I would consider power=line + location=underground at least confusing, if not contradictory. power=cable + location=underground is definitely to be preferred. Volker On 15 January 2013 14:50, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: undergound power lines -- Volker SCHMIDT Via del Cristo 28 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Of course I agree with you, Volker. But aerial line refers to all the conductors transmitting different lives/phases whereas underground power cable, at high voltage, refers to only one phase/conductor. http://www.nexans.no/eservice/Norway-no_NO/fileLibrary/Download_540199654/Norway/files/Underground_power_cables.pdf *So, many underground cables are needed to set up a line!* You may have multi-conductors cables up to 150 kV but you still have several conductors. Insulation is mandatory underground because we can't put enough space between conductors, instead of what is done in the air. The right question is *do we map cables separately or lines*? It's all about the vocabulary we use. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CnkQkGiPmbs/UFM6M2N0lUI/Ark/IMZxA3i6SmY/s1600/tunnel.png If we map cables we must do the same for both aerial and underground lines and I'm not sure it would be really efficient. 2013/1/15 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com In English, overground power transmission is done by overground power *lines *(strands of metal without insulation, using the air as insulator), underground power transmission is done by means of underground power * cables* (strands of metal with insulation) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission, #Underground transmission) For that reason I would consider power=line + location=underground at least confusing, if not contradictory. power=cable + location=underground is definitely to be preferred. Volker -- Volker SCHMIDT Via del Cristo 28 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
This may help http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/164648452. Power lines in this case pass through an old railway tunnel. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 15/01/2013 14:31 François Lacombe wrote: Of course I agree with you, Volker. But aerial line refers to all the conductors transmitting different lives/phases whereas underground power cable, at high voltage, refers to only one phase/conductor. http://www.nexans.no/eservice/Norway-no_NO/fileLibrary/Download_540199654/Norway/files/Underground_power_cables.pdf So, many underground cables are needed to set up a line! You may have multi-conductors cables up to 150 kV but you still have several conductors. Insulation is mandatory underground because we can't put enough space between conductors, instead of what is done in the air. The right question is do we map cables separately or lines? It's all about the vocabulary we use. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CnkQkGiPmbs/UFM6M2N0lUI/Ark/IMZxA3i6SmY/s1600/tunnel.png If we map cables we must do the same for both aerial and underground lines and I'm not sure it would be really efficient. 2013/1/15 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com In English, overground power transmission is done by overground power lines (strands of metal without insulation, using the air as insulator), underground power transmission is done by means of underground power cables (strands of metal with insulation) (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission, #Underground transmission) For that reason I would consider power=line + location=underground at least confusing, if not contradictory. power=cable + location=underground is definitely to be preferred. Volker -- Volker SCHMIDT Via del Cristo 28 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- François Lacombe francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-15 16:43, Philip Barnes wrote : This may help http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/164648452. Power lines in this case pass through an old railway tunnel. Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Nice example Phil, thanks a lot. My tagging scheme works great with it : power=line + locaion=underground :) 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) No problem I mean : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Not my mapping, just somewhere I've been walking and thought wonder if it had been mapped. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 15/01/2013 16:06 François Lacombe wrote: Nice example Phil, thanks a lot. My tagging scheme works great with it : power=line + locaion=underground :) 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) No problem I mean : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage François Lacombe francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
Just to be sure, I have consulted my professional electrical engineer colleagues. We agree that there is some space for ambiguity. When one (overground) power line (which is composed of several conductors) goes underground, the power line continues as one or several underground cables, depending on the technical implementation. High-power lines are always implemented underground as several cables with every cable carrying one conductor, as seems to be shown in the example picture https://lh3.ggpht.com/-CnkQkGiPmbs/UFM6M2N0lUI/Ark/IMZxA3i6SmY/s1600/tunnel.png My conclusion: I would simply suggest to accept both power=line and power=cable as equivalent. The average mapper is not an electrical engineer after all. Volker On 15 January 2013 17:21, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Not my mapping, just somewhere I've been walking and thought wonder if it had been mapped. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 15/01/2013 16:06 François Lacombe wrote: Nice example Phil, thanks a lot. My tagging scheme works great with it : power=line + locaion=underground :) 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) No problem I mean : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
In my mind, average mapper (with engineering degree or not, someone who don't want get busy with hard specialized technical stuff) only see the line. The line is the base concept of all the rest. It support tags and circuits relations. It can has 1 or several conductors, that's not the point at first sight. It's the simplest to map too : you put a way with power=line, nodes with power=tower or pole and that's it. Someone who wants to go deeper with concepts can add some extra tags and spend extra hours to design substation material at its discretion. If we let users choose the right tag to use, the underlying question of this thread won't be answered at all, that's my fear. If we look at power=line vs power=cable, there are only 838 ways tagged as cable against 184 554 ways described as power=line. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dcable Correct the wiki will be harder than migrate all these 838 ways to power=line + location=underground. 2013/1/15 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com Just to be sure, I have consulted my professional electrical engineer colleagues. We agree that there is some space for ambiguity. When one (overground) power line (which is composed of several conductors) goes underground, the power line continues as one or several underground cables, depending on the technical implementation. High-power lines are always implemented underground as several cables with every cable carrying one conductor, as seems to be shown in the example picture https://lh3.ggpht.com/-CnkQkGiPmbs/UFM6M2N0lUI/Ark/IMZxA3i6SmY/s1600/tunnel.png My conclusion: I would simply suggest to accept both power=line and power=cable as equivalent. The average mapper is not an electrical engineer after all. Volker -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 2013-01-15 16:43, Philip Barnes wrote : This may help http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/164648452. Power lines in this case pass through an old railway tunnel. On 2013-01-15 17:06, François Lacombe wrote : Nice example Phil, thanks a lot. My tagging scheme works great with it : power=line + locaion=underground :) 2013/1/15 A.Pirard.Papou a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com Shouldn't the tag be voltage:power=40 ? ;-) No problem I mean : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage OK, must've been a fast train then ;-) railway=disused voltage:railway=40 ;-) In any case, aerial is much more fun http://www.flixxy.com/helicopter-cable-inspector.htm than hiring maintenance moles ;-) But, while I was readjusting what others have left behind, I found a power line, as it's often the case with those long haul mappings (landuse etc...), that was attached to a bike lane (node in common). Imagine catching 24000 V in the pedals ;-) Seriously, isn't there a way to be exempted from having to detach those long haul ways from everything many times a day, and often have to move them to the right place, sometimes 50 m away? Those attached line and lane were crossing at right angle !!! I suppose one does not do that on purpose ! There must be some feature to fix in some editor explaining that. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 15/01/2013 15:31, François Lacombe wrote: But aerial line refers to all the conductors transmitting different lives/phases whereas underground power cable, at high voltage, refers to only one phase/conductor. http://www.nexans.no/eservice/Norway-no_NO/fileLibrary/Download_540199654/Norway/files/Underground_power_cables.pdf *So, many underground cables are needed to set up a line!* You may have multi-conductors cables up to 150 kV but you still have several conductors. Insulation is mandatory underground because we can't put enough space between conductors, instead of what is done in the air. The right question is *do we map cables separately or lines*? It's all about the vocabulary we use. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CnkQkGiPmbs/UFM6M2N0lUI/Ark/IMZxA3i6SmY/s1600/tunnel.png If we map cables we must do the same for both aerial and underground lines and I'm not sure it would be really efficient. Well, I think we need to properly define what is meant by power=cable. The wiki page isn't entirely clear on that matter. I'm usually mapping a underground cable connection as a single way tagged as power=cable and indicating the number of physical cables with cables=* (if it is known to me). Your interpretation is obviously that each physical cable should be mapped as power=cable (which you can't if you don't know the number of cables). Considering that power=line and power=cable are used so extensively I think it is a bad idea to redefine the meaning of them as it would break a lot of things and confuse mappers. The distinction between 'line' for overhead power lines and 'cable' for underground cable connections is easily understandable by the average non-expert mapper. My proposal is to clarify both the 'line' and 'cable' wikis as follows: power=line should represent a connection comprising UN-insulated conductors mounted on towers or other supporting structures, normally over ground. power=cable should represent a connection consisting of one or more insulated cables (whether underground, underwater, in a tunnel or overground). The number of physical cables for a cable connection should be indicated by cables=* when known. I'm currently drafting a wiki page for a circuits tag to describe the number of electrical circuits, especially useful for cable connections having an unknown number of cables, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circuits. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
On 15/01/2013 19:29, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: But, while I was readjusting what others have left behind, I found a power line, as it's often the case with those long haul mappings (landuse etc...), that was attached to a bike lane (node in common). Imagine catching 24000 V in the pedals ;-) Seriously, isn't there a way to be exempted from having to detach those long haul ways from everything many times a day, and often have to move them to the right place, sometimes 50 m away? It's clearly wrong to connect power lines to highways, landuse etc. Maybe you could try to find out if it is a particular mapper in your area doing this and contact him. Those attached line and lane were crossing at right angle !!! I suppose one does not do that on purpose ! There must be some feature to fix in some editor explaining that. The 'snap-to' function in JOSM sometimes causes such accidents if you are not careful but I suspect many of those spurious connections are caused by mappers using Potlatch. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
2013/1/15 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl Well, I think we need to properly define what is meant by power=cable. The wiki page isn't entirely clear on that matter. I'm usually mapping a underground cable connection as a single way tagged as power=cable and indicating the number of physical cables with cables=* (if it is known to me). I'm totally aware of that. But it doesn't explain why we have to represent two equals things with two different names and two different concepts. Tags intend to describe reality, not transform data as mappers want it to appear. Your interpretation is obviously that each physical cable should be mapped as power=cable (which you can't if you don't know the number of cables). No. I tried to imagine what we would have to do if we were using cable at its right signification. It's not what I propose. Considering that power=line and power=cable are used so extensively I think it is a bad idea to redefine the meaning of them as it would break a lot of things and confuse mappers. The distinction between 'line' for overhead power lines and 'cable' for underground cable connections is easily understandable by the average non-expert mapper. It's a point of view. There are some ways still described with deprecated tags like power=underground_cable. They must be modified to conform to current model. Don't break users implementation is not a good reason to keep deprecated implementation with no limit of time. *If users want a stable data-set, they download an extract of planet.* My proposal is to clarify both the 'line' and 'cable' wikis as follows: power=line should represent a connection comprising UN-insulated conductors mounted on towers or other supporting structures, normally over ground. power=cable should represent a connection consisting of one or more insulated cables (whether underground, underwater, in a tunnel or overground). But there are some places where non-insulated cables are installed indoor, like in bridges or even in some dedicated tunnels (like it seems to be in the Philip Barnes' example). So what would be the tagging scheme here? power=line (non insulated cables) or power=cable (indoor case)? It don't make great sense. Ideally, multi-dimensional tagging must be made by association of several mono-dimensional range of values. We have power=line, power=minor_line, etc... but it can't give the location, which must be defined by another tag. The number of physical cables for a cable connection should be indicated by cables=* when known. I'm currently drafting a wiki page for a circuits tag to describe the number of electrical circuits, especially useful for cable connections having an unknown number of cables, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Key:circuitshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circuits . And I totally agree with you on this side of the tagging scheme :) Regards. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground, Vol 40, Issue 30
From: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 30 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:52:42 + 5. Re: Powerlines underground (Fran?ois Lacombe) Hi Guys, since I had the wrong impression, it looks like were tagging underground powerlines. How do we recognize the connections between the sations ? Or is the data added by external sources as mentioned ? But something else crossed my mind. What do we do with the other underground transport systems, like oil (sometimes secret military lines) natural or industrial gas and waste and drinking water ? I search for it but no WIKI solution IMHO.Greetz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground, Vol 40, Issue 30
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:23:55 -0500 From: nerou...@gmail.com CC: st.nikl...@live.nl Subject: Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground, Vol 40, Issue 30 Hi,Thanks, I didnt use the right key word to see the tags. But the way of a underground line remains secret to most of us if the data isnt backup by extrenals. I doubt to draw a powerline straight between to substations !Greetz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground
2013/1/15 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl: The 'snap-to' function in JOSM sometimes causes such accidents if you are not careful but I suspect many of those spurious connections are caused by mappers using Potlatch. btw.: you can temporarily disable snapping by holding ctrl cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
