A new item "Visible vs not" has been added to Talk and deals with the problem of underground lines.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Visible_vs._Not *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/7/27 François Lacombe <francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> > Here is a mail that can be useful to see in ML. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: François Lacombe <francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> > Date: 2013/7/27 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Power transmission > refinement > To: Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> > > > > 2013/7/27 Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, François Lacombe < >> francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> wrote: >> >>> >>> 2013/7/26 Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> >>> >>>> But you're changing the definition of an existing tag, >>>> over the objections of existing mappers. You can do better. >>>> >>> >>> Ok. What's your suggestion about that ? >>> >> >> >> >> The basic suggestion is for you to show some public concern for matching >> *existing* tagging practice and harmonize. >> > > Thus you think that the proposal here isn't harmonizing enough ? > Have a look to man_made=pipeline model to see how power and pipeline will > be closer if this proposal is accepted. > > location is used by pipeline... not by power. > > Pipeline include water distribution. Those networks are maybe longer than > power ones. Let's think about it. > > > >> ----------------- >> In support of your proposals you could seek support from the >> P2/JOSM/Mapnik communities to redefine the tag. If the rendering editing >> and wiki are all in harmony, then changing existing use is practical. >> Without that support the rendering is likely to lag for many years. >> > > I'm convinced into rendering is more blocked by mapcss than by the tagging > model. > I think that tagging is central instead of rendering which only is > peripheral. Tagging isn't only useful to render, according to what I write > at the bottom of this message. > > > >> ------------------ >> The location tag is not usually used for visible vs. underground. That >> tag is layer=, well established: >> >> power=line >> layer=-1 (for underground cable) >> >> power=line >> layer=1 (for above-ground, the default) >> >> > layer=* is mainly designed for render engines. Furthermore it introduce a > classification. The trick here isn't to know which feature is under another > but to know where each feature is without any vertical relation between > them. > According to wiki, location seems to best describe what we're looking for > : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location > > > >> And a single transmission line may span states, countries, mountains, >> tunnels, pylons... that can be tied together with a relation. >> > > Yes, but it's the next step, which is still draft : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal > > Refine power=* is a big need before doing anything with power lines and > circuits. > > >> You can solve the stacking of equipment as: >> >> power=pole >> power:transformer=PGE >> power:cellular=Verizon >> power:telephone=ATT >> power:fiber=sonic.net >> ref=A1235 >> operator=PGE >> >> > That's what I call "dirty tricks" : power:transformer isn't introduced at > all, there's a weird relation between power & telephone with > power:telephone. > > We can create as many nodes as many power features we have to map and link > them with power=line ways. It's also dirty but closer to official operators > diagrams even it's not perfect. > > Why can't we move pole & tower to man_made=* and only use power for > features which deserve it ? > > man_made=pole > power=transformer > operator=PGE > operator:telephone=ATT > operator:cellular=Verizon > operator:power=PGE > fiber=sonic.net > ref:power=A1235 > ref:cellular=B7896 > > There are many fields of knowledge which share a feature, but without any > collision between them. > > As for size of facility: the practice on paper maps is to show "major" >> power lines. The type that show up on air photos and are landmarks to >> hikers. The boundary may be fuzzy, but at the extremes it is clear. A big >> visible thing wants to appear on most renderings, and minor things don't. >> You need to find a way to replicate that, in order to make for good maps. >> > > That's a key point : I aim to propose a robust and consistent tagging > model to share reliable data about power networks. Not especially fancy > maps. > Rendering is only a single use out of many more allowed by OSM system. I > don't know and can't even imagine what would other users do with the data I > add to the map. > The main part of data about power networks must be avoided by common > rendering to reduce map cluttering... Only aerial lines and towers should > be shown. > > > Good night from France :) > > > *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