On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:59:41 +0200 David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote:
> 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. Am I correct? Regards. Yes. I would also add that power=line/minor_line distinction is highly useful for everybody using power lines as orientation points. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
