Well, I would say: mainly on poles = minor_line, and mainly on towers = line; this way, the difference is easy to see for mappers, even on Bing imagery, and, as poles, AFAIK, are always smaller that towers, that would properly model the landscape impact these power lines have. Besides, I know we're not supposed to map for the renderer, but the OSM Mapnik stylesheet seems adapted for such modelling, as minor_line are rendered only on higher zooms, i.e. starting from z16, which seems to me a correct rendering for lines on poles, far less visible than lines on towers. I mean, the stylesheet guys made a logical choice, why not adopting the same?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:48:58 +0200 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line (Sent from a phone) Hi David, Many opinion exists regarding the minor or not line qualification and still no consensus. As consumers may not be able to make the right distinction between minor or major lines, I assume using power=line only, in continental France and always in combination with voltage=* and operator=*. Thus both users and mappers only have information instead of hypothesis and can make the distinction they want from the voltage, location and operating company. Additionally, underground power paths use to be mapped with power=cable + location=underground Let us know if you have better idea to improve power line mapping ;) All the best François
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
