Proposal:Insulated
| insulated=yes/no | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Abandoned (inactive) |
| Tagging: | insulated=yes/no |
| Applies to: | |
| Definition: | to allow specifying whatever power line is insulated as an attribute |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2018-11-03 |
| RFC start: | first: 2018-11-03 second: 2018-11-21 |
| Vote start: | 2019-01-09 |
| Vote end: | 2019-01-23 |
Proposal
To allow specifying whatever power line is insulated as an optional attribute. This proposal is intended to be as simplest as possible. There is also a more complicated insulation proposal.
Rationale
Currently documentation seems to advocate using power=line/power=minor_line or power=cable depending on whatever power line is insulated.
Putting such minor detail as fundamental to selecting correct tag has several problematic consequences
- most people are unaware about this difference and will ignore it
- most people are uninterested in this difference and will ignore it
- it is impossible to check whatever power line is insulated based on aerial images
- it is impossible to check whatever power line is insulated during survey without closely approaching power line
Note that some power wires may be coated, without making them insulated. Checking whatever wire is insulated is tricky and mappers should not be forced to do it.
Tagging
Use insulated=yes or insulated=no on power=line/power=minor_line
Features/Pages affected
Tag:insulated=yes, Tag:insulated=no would be created
This tagging scheme would be mentioned as attribute on Tag:power=line and Tag:power=minor_line
This tagging scheme would be mentioned as an alternative tagging scheme on Tag:power=cable. Note that it Tag:power=cable will not be classified as deprecated.
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Current usage
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support proposal. |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I approve this proposal. So far I had no comments on this proposal - hopefully any problems will be pointed out now --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. It's on my fault to didn't notice this proposal earlier. According to IEC 466-01-02, it's ok and I'd rather go for it. Would you mind moving to insulation=* instead of insulated=* as we can use it more widely please? See Proposed_features/Insulation_proposal Fanfouer (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. (I just think it were clearer to create Key:insulated instead of Tag:insulated=yes + Tag:insulated=no.) –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. IMHO, Fanfouer is right, insulation would enable more precision when needed --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--LeifRasmussen (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)