On 16/10/18 18:47, François Lacombe wrote:
Le mar. 16 oct. 2018 à 00:20, Greg Troxel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
So I don't see how we can make "insulated" a big deal in tagging,
defining the top-level tag, rather than being a detail to add when
known.
For me a single 'line' is one conductor, where as a cable will be more
than one conductor.
Usually the difference can be seen at the ends - where a cable is split
into the separate conductors.
High voltage things tend to be lines, cheaper I guess.
I agree with both of you Greg and Marc
Nevertheless, this was a debate in 2013 and I was in favor to merge
line, cable and minor_line
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#power.3Dminor_line_and_power.3Dminor_cable_replacement
Due to power=cable and power=line usage in OSM, many contributors
didn't want to mass retag power=cable.
Then we all agreed on line/cable distinction in late 2014 or 2015.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_paths_refinement#Integrated_power.3Dcable
Note that insulation is also a draft proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Insulation_proposal
I'm still opposed to minor_line since in merge several different
concept in one value, and is only useful for rendering.
That said, I fully support your notion of tagging voltage, so that
low-voltage lines can be rendered only at extreme zooms, and to
assume a
line is low voltage (240V seems like a reasonable default
assumption in
terms of controlling rendering) if not tagged.
Great, should we open an issue on carto github to propose to lower the
rendering of cables without voltage?
Make a default value of 240 v for lines that have no voltage tag?
That would work and motivate some to add the voltage tag.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
