Hi and thank you Joseph, Answers are on the Talk page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management
All the best François Le ven. 27 mars 2020 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > The explanation of line_management=branch is not very clear: > > "==Loops are actual branches== > Former undocumented key {{Tag|branch:type}} had a value for > connections between several power lines coming from the same > direction: ''loop''. > > "It is proposed to consider them as branches due to > [http://osm.janos-koenig.de/IMG_0046.JPG such situations] where 3 > lines connect to the same support and look like a loop but shouldn't > be described this way." > > What does this mean? > > Another part says: > > tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=loop) -> to be replaced by > line_management=branch > > "Two or more independent circuits are connected in the same direction > to maintain a dead part of the network under a positive voltage" > > What's a dead part of the network? What do you mean by positive > voltage, can voltage be negative? > > Also, it's mentioned that tower:type=crossing (where a power line > crosses a river or canyon) should be replaced by height=* + designe=* > where "A support is significantly higher and stronger to allow a line > to cross an obstacle like rivers" > > Are you proposing any new values of "design=*" for this, or should > existing values be used? > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > On 3/27/20, François Lacombe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The line_management=* proposal vote will be open starting on next Monday. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management > > > > Clarifications and improvements have been made as follow : > > * Focus on power only and remove telecom usecase. Proposed terminology is > > generic enough to be used in telecom sector in a further proposal to give > > better solutions to tag telecom supports. > > * Remove line_management=loop and consider them as line_management=branch > > > > Proposed key has been used by 6 people on ~450 features already without > big > > problems it seems. > > > > Feel free to raise concerns or wait next week to vote on the document. > > > > All the best > > > > François > > > > Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 01:08, François Lacombe < > [email protected]> > > a écrit : > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This proposal is still in RFC and may be voted in a couple of weeks as > >> evaluation shown no issue so far, at least on transmission power lines. > >> line_management tag is used carefully for testing. > >> Read more : > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058 > >> > >> Nevertheless it's an opportunity to review the branch:type tag > >> replacement > >> with line_management=* > >> > >> i'm still looking for an appropriate illustration for two values > >> examples: > >> * line_management=cross (two or more lines with different directions > >> sharing the same support without connecting) > >> * line_management=loop (two or more lines coming from the same direction > >> are connected as to mock some of them) > >> > >> Feel free to propose and complete if you find corresponding situations > on > >> ground > >> > >> Thanks in advance > >> > >> François > >> > >> Le sam. 26 oct. 2019 à 20:59, François Lacombe > >> <[email protected]> > >> a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> After the review of line_attachment key this summer and Karlsruhe > >>> hackweekend at Geofabrik headquarters last week, let me introduce the > >>> second stage of tower:type key cleaning project for power lines. Great > >>> time > >>> has been spent on discussing and finding relevant situations. > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management > >>> > >>> It's now about the arrangement of power lines around their supports: > how > >>> the lines branch, split, transpose or terminate. > >>> As current tagging (without line_management) still collides with any > >>> tower building function, the line_management key may be a solution to > >>> strip > >>> unrelated values from tower:type. > >>> > >>> I've published a diary entry to give more explanations > >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058 > >>> > >>> I'd draw your attention to the conclusion : > >>> "Mapping utility supports like power towers or telecom poles is a > >>> worldwide challenge. For instance in France, professionals including > >>> operators and contractors rolling out overhead telecom cables are > >>> currently > >>> looking for approx. 16 millions missing shared power poles that weren’t > >>> mapped in operational GIS. There’s no doubt updating OSM can help." > >>> There's no short term risk of importing massive data, at least. > >>> > >>> This proposal is a first try and may cause worries about some local > >>> concerns. RFC is here to solve this prior to vote anything. > >>> We have to focus on simple situations to begin with to adopt the right > >>> semantic. More complex cases will be added step by step. > >>> Feel free to open a topic in Talk page. > >>> > >>> All the best > >>> > >>> François > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
