### Re: [Tagging] power lines/cables power

```

On 15/11/2020 19.17, François Lacombe
wrote:

Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 16:45,
André Pirard  a
écrit :

Hi,

A group of friends were discussing the first electricity
power link between Germany and Belgium.
And I was kinda proud to show them this
where the only line
across the border clearly shows.
Well done, guys (and gals?)!

Way 578137663
Tags 7

cables=1
circuits=1
frequency=0
location=underground
name=Alegro Interconnector
power=cable
voltage=32

Their concern was interstate power transfers and a maximum
of 7,5 GW was mentioned (more than the 6 GW Belgian
deprecated nuclear capacity, effectively running at 4,5 GW).
So then I was surprised that a power cable or line does not
indicate that power.
I looked trough the wiki and all I found as power was an
unsuitable generator:rating:...
So, as power:power=* seems weird, I added power:maximum=7.5
GW, allowing for power:mean=* or he like.
As I don't want to get into propositions, I let specialists
discuss that.
Let me know if and how I should change that tag.

Envoyé de mon immobile Thunderbird, et sans virus
non plus grâce à seulement Ubuntu,

All the best,

André.

On 15/11/2020 19.17, François Lacombe
wrote:

Hi André,

That's an interesting question.
Power transformers can have rating=* to state how many
power they can transmit.
I see no problem to add it to a power relation like the
one involving the line you mention
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8193755#map=11/50.7528/6.0606

Can you explain the difference between your value (7.5
GW) and the value already visible on the relation (1 GW)

Difference between rating on a power=line/cable and
rating on a power relation is a follow:
- On a line/cable, it's the maximum capacity the
line/cable is designed for
- On a relation, it's the rating the whole link is
operating at

Power circuits relations :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal

All the best

François

Haille François,

Merci pour ta réponse.
So, I was told that 7,5 GW rating by an ALEGrO engineer but I didn't
see it on OSM. He didn't mention 1 GW.
So I looked all over the wiki.
Passing an accepted proposal that should say that it is overridden
by another one, typical wiki, I saw no mention of power rating
except for generators. And that cable has dead ends.
And in the proposal you show, I see no mention of power rating
either, esp. in the relation.

A typical OSM browser needs to be an expert already to know how to
look at tags and do so.
Let alone guessing that what he does not find could be in a
relation.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how a relation could indicate the
operational power ratings of branches.

All in all, I continue to believe that a cable or line should
indicate their power ratings.
Let's be nice to the map users who were refused
a F1=Help by Tom Hughes.
So, so, so, I have made the cable nice tags:

power:maximum=7.5 GW
power:used=1 GW

Quite self-describing and friendly.
Please discuss this matter and warn me of any change.

All the best,

Cordialement,

André.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea :

> I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an
> individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that
> otherwise has another source.  In short, if ALL of the data are from a
> single source, use a changeset comment to note this.  If not, source=* tags
> are appropriate.
>

I find the source tags in general problematic, most of all those "source"=*
tags which do not relate to a specific tag. It may make sense for the
creator of the object to add it, but what if someone changes something.
E.g. you add a tag, or remove a tag, or change a value. What would you do
with an existing source tag? Easy if you base your edit on the same source,
otherwise, would you have to remove it? How much do you have to change in
order to remove it? Or should you always be adding more values to the
existing source string without ever removing anything, until you reach 255
characters and then continue in a source2-tag?

>From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, because
they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some
versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the
tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway.

I have been looking around (arbitrary examples I got by searching for
amenity=* and source=Bing with overpass, first hit, tried in 3 different
areas)  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145393264
source=Bing: which properties are from Bing, the address? The name? The
fact it is a kindergarten? Looking at the history, I can see that the tag
was already added in version 1 and that the node positions never changed.
The geometry fits reasonably well with Bing although it is far from
perfectly matching (I'd say it fits better with ESRI for instance). Likely
the Bing imagery has changed since 2012 when this was first drawn. IMHO in
this case there is no benefit from this tag.

Another arbitrary example, from another continent:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2728286792
There is quite some detail information on this node, but I find it hard to
believe any of it came from Bing (imagery).

The third example is a post office:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223059928
in this case it is also hardly anything from Bing, surely neither the name
nor the post office information.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```DaveF:  I don’t wish to baffle, so I appreciate your clarifications.

I think we agree we don’t want “less correct” (out-of-date, etc.) data in OSM.
We leave to the judgement of the Contributor whether data which are imported or
curated from official sources IF those sources are of high enough quality
(recent enough, accurate enough…) to enter into OSM.  If they are not, don’t
import them.  That’s all I’m saying here.  I offer you my sincere apologies if
I misinterpreted you.

SteveA

On Nov 17, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 17/11/2020 18:56, stevea wrote:
>>
>>> I've found published data (from the authority
>>> authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
>>> lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.
>> Then, don’t import, curate or transfer them to OSM.  I don’t believe we want
>> "inaccurate, out-of-date or lacking in detail data" in OSM.
>
> I'm baffled how you could completely misinterpret my comment about NOT
> entering data which would reduce the quality of the OSM database.
>
> DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```
On 17/11/2020 18:56, stevea wrote:

I've found published data (from the authority
authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.

Then, don’t import, curate or transfer them to OSM.  I don’t believe we want
"inaccurate, out-of-date or lacking in detail data" in OSM.

I'm baffled how you could completely misinterpret my comment about NOT
entering data which would reduce the quality of the OSM database.

DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```On Nov 17, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Seth Deegan  wrote:
> A contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each
> changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's
> limited usefulness when added to individual objects.
>
> Exactly.

I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an individual
datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that otherwise has
another source.  In short, if ALL of the data are from a single source, use a
changeset comment to note this.  If not, source=* tags are appropriate.

> I've found published data (from the authority
> authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
> lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.

Then, don’t import, curate or transfer them to OSM.  I don’t believe we want
"inaccurate, out-of-date or lacking in detail data" in OSM.

> I find the opposite and I mostly map cycle routes that are local and I have
> personally traveled on (I live in the Chicago metropolitan area). There are
> just too many sources for trail names and data from forest preserve
> districts/counties, cities, regional routes, etc. that I make routes from. I
> can't just remember all of the trail names I come across (I don't survey).

It is good to enter source data when you know them.  However, it won’t be the
downfall of OSM if you don’t.

> What I still don't understand is why you all are discouraging the use of
> source=* tag (or maybe you're not?). Because it seems that it can still be of
> use to some people. Why not let users know on the Wiki page that they can use
> the tag if they might find a specific source helpful to other users, but that
> they shouldn't tag imagery or other general sources per-element and instead
> tag it on the changeset? Thank you for agreeing ael.

I don’t believe I did “discourage” the use of source=* although I regret if I
gave the list that impression.  I believe I said changeset comments noting the
source of the data “largely deprecates” using specific source=* tags on each
specific datum, because I have gotten in the habit of (and think it a good
idea) keeping my changes to those which derive from a specific source (whether
“official” data or not, as I’ll enter “personal survey” or “my own GPX tracks”
if true) in a single changeset.  However, knowing it is true that this isn’t
always the case, OSM does reserve the flexibility to say “from County of Foobar
GIS Department” in a changeset comment while SOME data in that same changeset
might contain individual source=* tags of “personal survey” or “GPS wander,
2020-11-17,” for example.  This isn’t a perfect system, I will not get
sanctioned if I don’t enter the true source of every single datum I enter in
OSM, but I do strive to identify my sources, less so individual-datum-at-a-time
(though, I’ll still do that if there is the divergence I note here), moreso via
a changeset comment that identifies that most or all of my data are from a
single source (like one layer of satellite imagery, for example).

SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```>
> it does an OK job of this:  click the History button to get a
> recent-around-here list of 20 edits (click the Load More button for 20
> more…and again and again if you like).
>

Clicking on one specific changeset will “drill down” to the specific data
> elements changed in that changeset (to the degree they can be displayed in
> a narrow column on a web page, though there are numbered “pages” you can
> scroll through for copious amounts of data).  These are grouped by data
> type (nodes, ways and relations), which in turn can have their “history”
> quite useful and user-friendly, requiring no more complicated skill than to
> click-navigate on a web page.

In my opinion, the current changeset viewer UI is *useless*. Giving me a
list of elements that I can't even see what tags and geometries are changed
(when clicking on each element) is of no use to me. You can't even hover
over one of the elements in the list and see it's geometry outline in the
map viewbox (would).

If the interface displayed the kind of data like
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/ did (Yves, you're right this is
the best one), or at least OSMcha, then it would be of use.

---

> A
> contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each
> changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's
> limited usefulness when added to individual objects.
>

Exactly.

I've found published data (from the authority
> authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
> lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.
>

I find the opposite and I mostly map cycle routes that are local and I have
personally traveled on (I live in the Chicago metropolitan area). There are
just too many sources for trail names and data from forest preserve
districts/counties, cities, regional routes, etc. that I make routes from.
I can't just remember all of the trail names I come across (I don't survey).

---

What I still don't understand is why you all are *discouraging* the use of
source=* tag (or maybe you're not?). Because it seems that it can still be
of use to some people. Why not let users know on the Wiki page that they *can
*use the tag if they might find a *specific* source helpful to other users,
but that they shouldn't tag imagery or other general sources per-element
and instead tag it on the changeset? Thank you for agreeing ael.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea  wrote:
> >
> > to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page
>
>
>
> yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the
> history view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this
> is something that could come back again? Or maybe invert the screen real
> estate division between map and history table.
> Josm has a decent history view integrated (ctrl+h) which let’s you compare
> between versions, links to changesets and shows for example position
> changes of nodes.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

--
Thanks,
Seth
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```The classic case for a "source" tag is for imports.  It's useful to know
that something came from a TIGER import, or from some public database or
wherever.  I think source=* makes sense when the data is literally coming
from some defined external place.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 17/11/2020 03:09, Seth Deegan wrote:
> > May I ask why not source=*?
>
> TBH. I'm not a fan of the tag. I don't think it adds much value. It's
> too subjective/variable, but...
>
> It relates to the individual contributor editing individual objects. A
> contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each
> changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's
> limited usefulness when added to individual objects.
>
> >  many times I find myself wondering where past mappers got the info
> > for a route (this happened just today).
>
> Anecdotal guesstimate: For cycle route - on the ground via signage for
> the vast majority. I've found published data (from the authority
> authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
> lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```
On 17/11/2020 03:09, Seth Deegan wrote:

May I ask why not source=*?

TBH. I'm not a fan of the tag. I don't think it adds much value. It's
too subjective/variable, but...

It relates to the individual contributor editing individual objects. A
contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each
changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's
limited usefulness when added to individual objects.

many times I find myself wondering where past mappers got the info
for a route (this happened just today).

Anecdotal guesstimate: For cycle route - on the ground via signage for
the vast majority. I've found published data (from the authority
authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.

DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```
sent from a phone

> On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea  wrote:
>
> to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page

yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the history
view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this is
something that could come back again? Or maybe invert the screen real estate
division between map and history table.
Josm has a decent history view integrated (ctrl+h) which let’s you compare
between versions, links to changesets and shows for example position changes of
nodes.

Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

```

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

```On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 08:25:43PM -0800, stevea wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Seth Deegan  wrote:
> > May I ask why not source=*? I know it's basically depreciated, but many
> > times I find myself wondering where past mappers got the info for a route
> > (this happened just today). I would find it very helpful. It also doesn't
> > require the tagging of all of the ways.

+1
> The source=* tag is largely deprecated by use of changeset comments
> indicating the source of elements in that changeset.

The idea that changeset comments can in any way replace the source tag
is in MHO ridiculous. In even a small changeset, there are typically a
whole range of sources for different elements. It is just too
coarse-grained to be useful. Maybe for armchair mappers who only have
one source, updating data that has only ever been armchair mapped it