Talk:Proposed features/Remotely controlled devices
The proposed value "industrial" seems strange. I am sure this is a classification type in some setting for "everything else / proprietary method", but for OSM I'd rather prefer a dedicated value for each of the possible sub-values there (like AS-Interface or 1wire) and not a "generic collector tag". --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you and added more specific values behind "industrial".
- But it's a difficult topic. The main question is "At which layer do I am mapping ?". Many of those industrial protocols are high level protocols and mappers can't know them just by looking at wires.
- Giving the highest level protocol name may be more relevant than the physical connection (we can use dozen of things over Ethernet nowadays) but not the easiest information to get => Dilemma Fanfouer (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)