Proposal talk:Power circuits routing
Remarks about verifiability
During the vote occurring from 2025-05-26 to 2025-06-09, several comments raised about verifiability:
- Hardly verifible and lack of easy ground truth. @Riiga: 11:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC
- There's nothing in this proposal about how to map or verify this data. @SomeoneElse: 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also, planned mapping methods conflicts with "Everything required to make such an assembly is available on ground" claim. @Mateusz Konieczny: 13:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- An example is proposed on community forum, based upon SomeoneElse's 207456692
207456692 case. It's in addition to several How will we get such information? chapters in the proposal itself. What kind of information or conflicts should we solve to make it clearer please? Fanfouer (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- What about resistance impedance reactance which is also part of that proposal? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- I encountered situations where physical properties were printed on ground, so basically it's the same for them. Down voting a key because someone could violate core principles of OSM isn't very fair. I could have imported highways from proprietary sources if I wanted to but no one discouraged anyone to map highways from suitable sources. Anyone who wants to bulk import something should discuss it first and this proposal doesn't propose a particular import. Question asked are more should we model physical properties or line capacity? Is it consistent to associate physical properties to physical lines or should we prefer circuits? and so... This proposal introduces placeholders for knowledge when appropriate source are available. Imports may be discouraged for various reasons and approved keys don't make it automatically legit Fanfouer (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- What about resistance impedance reactance which is also part of that proposal? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Topology key seems like duplication
The `topology` key seems like unnecessary duplication, as the number of `substation` directly implies `linear`/`branched`. @Jofban: 14:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- The topology key allows to define the actual situation without being able to find all substations on ground. It's true the number of substations involved allow to deduct but this deduction can be used in quality control too check if it is consistent.
- Sometimes, on ground you may see 3 substations names written on towers but the 3rd is not yet mapped in OSM and you didn't find it yet. Then you use
topology=branchto prevent anyone to consider it as linear. Fanfouer (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourcing from open data and statistical model
The proposal repeatedly states that the information is not ground observable and should be sourced from other open data. In one case it even suggests to use statistical models to guess. Doesn't make sense to have in OSM. Rather seems to be a good candidate for creating derivative data from OSM and other sources. @Lonvia: 12:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I guess this is about physical properties. This proposal doesn't force anyone to look and find the data to contribute. But we currently struggle to maintain information from people who want to contribute on that particular matter so that's how we could improve it. By the way, I don't see any mention of statistical model to find the information, where had you read it? Fanfouer (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- "How will we get such information?" mentions "Public information, scientific datasets or open data could help find impedance, resistance and reactance as many scientists and researchers currently build static network models." - I understand this as importing data from these statistical models would be one of sources Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- A static model isn't statistical, why are you assuming it is? Static is opposed to dynamic, it's physical properties that doesn't change over time Fanfouer (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- OK, so that is next level of confusion: I expect network models to be statistical models, it is not coming from static part. Though if I would be writing I would focus on model part, not statistical part Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- A static model isn't statistical, why are you assuming it is? Static is opposed to dynamic, it's physical properties that doesn't change over time Fanfouer (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- "How will we get such information?" mentions "Public information, scientific datasets or open data could help find impedance, resistance and reactance as many scientists and researchers currently build static network models." - I understand this as importing data from these statistical models would be one of sources Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Why against type=route?
Resolved: proposal has been improved without change in meaningI also don't understand the reasoning against `type=route`. Sure, it's not public transit, but there are also bike routes. @Jofban: 14:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Bikes routes and public transit relation are used by the same kind of software. Currently having
route=powerforce them to filter as not getting cluttered by relations they won't ever consider. It's just like waterways aren't routes for water, there istype=waterwayinstead. Fanfouer (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)- The current argument boils down to "Electrons don't move like people" whereas the argument I believe you want to make is "Electrons/Power aren't people", i.e. `type=route` is for routes where people can travel on (perhaps using particular vehicles) and power lines are certainly not used for that. Jofban (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Electrons don't move, it's a fact. It's more related to force than matter. By the way, is it clearer for you why the proposal doesn't promote
route=power? Fanfouer (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)- Thinking about it myself (and consulting the relevant Wiki pages), I came to agreement with you that
type=routeroute=powerdoesn't fit. However, the reasoning has nothing to do with how power is transmitted (I'm aware that charges don't move in AC circuits), instead focusing on the aspect thattype=routeare routes for people, which transmission lines aren't. Jofban (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)- The sentence Also there are no traveling things like buses, passengers or travelers as in "common" routes. seems to summarize the difference about human traveling. Should I rephrase it? Fanfouer (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thinking about it myself (and consulting the relevant Wiki pages), I came to agreement with you that
- Electrons don't move, it's a fact. It's more related to force than matter. By the way, is it clearer for you why the proposal doesn't promote
- The current argument boils down to "Electrons don't move like people" whereas the argument I believe you want to make is "Electrons/Power aren't people", i.e. `type=route` is for routes where people can travel on (perhaps using particular vehicles) and power lines are certainly not used for that. Jofban (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
You somehow made that section worse, and with your response, I think it's an attitude issue. To put it bluntly, the first paragraph reads like this: You all don't know how electricity works, so I understand that you can't see the difference between a power line and a hiking trail. But fortunately, I got a degree in EE, so I can tell you that they are, in fact, different. The way it is written insinuates quite a condescending viewpoint, no matter how correct the reasoning might be. As for routing software: Keep your reasoning simple. The tagging is wrong, leave it at that. Jofban (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've no EE degree and I'm not the original author. I had in mind to also respect what precedes us in this common build but it wasn't clear. Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)