On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 22:50, François Lacombe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Le mer. 28 août 2019 à 19:09, Paul Allen <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> Nope, Ingress Protection. It's an international standard, though. >> > Thats a detail, official document stands for International Protection > https://texa-co.ir/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IEC-60529.pdf (see §4 page > 18) > You're right. I've only ever encountered "IP" expanded as Ingress Protection, which makes sense. Now I've done some digging, I found the Wikipedia talk page where they suspect the authors of the standard made an error. One commenter pointed out that "International Protection" would be about preventing warfare. Another commenter said that when he worked on translating a standard he encountered many errors. Even so, the official document covering testing of enclosures for the degree of protection they offer to the ingress of liquids and particulates says, as an aside, that IP stands for "International Protection" and not the "Ingress Protection" that would make more sense. If we can avoid confusion, we should. I'm not sure that this does. >> > It requires at least a strong context to not be confused with any other > protection classification system. > To be honest, I'd not expect a national park to be protected from liquid or particulate ingress, nor an electrical enclosure to impose restrictions on building houses within it. Nor do I expect even micro-mappers to document the IP rating of electrical enclosures they map. The only thing we really need to worry about is namespace collision, and that's usually dealt with by a first-come/first-served approach. Let's see if Kevin wishes to take care of this > If he can, that would be good. If he can't, then anyone who needs to map the International Protection rating of electrical enclosures will have to come up with a different tag. :) -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
