David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> writes: > Thanks for the full story, Lauri. I understand now why the subject > seems so sensitive to some. I retain from your story, if I correctly > understood it that:* the current usage of minor_line/line is the one I > previously suggested: use minor_line for lines mainly on poles and > line for lines mainly on towers, with a tolerance if a line > occasionally uses something different;* the problem of this modelling, > which bothers some, is that it leads to a fuzzy modelling from a > technical, power network point of view, because it doesn't reflect the > actual usage, voltage or any technical characteristics of the power > line;* the current usage of minor_line/line is nevertheless retained > as it is a perceptible, beginners-friendly distinction, allows easy > rendering, and as other essential characteristics, as voltage, number > of cables or tower/pole shapes are already managed by other tags, even > if some others, as the distribution/transport distinction, isn't > modelled.
I'm coming into this late, but I think key questions are: transmission vs distribution: in the US, this is a big divide. Sometimes transmission lines are on "poles" and sometimes on "towers". That doesn't really matter in terms of how they work and are used. The point is that 115 kV or even 69 kV is distribution to town-based substations, not from substations to customers. Is the rest of the world like this? do we expect power-line mappers to be able to tell transmission vs distribution? I think it's reasonable to expect mappers to tell distribution from transmission. Do we mean minor_line is for distribution? Or is it some kind of transmission?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
