Proposed features/Lines management

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Lines_management
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Fanfouer
Tagging: line_management=*
Applies to: node
Definition: Qualify power supports where lines branch, transpose, split or cross with versatile terminology
Drafted on: 2019-10-15
RFC start: 2019-10-26
Vote start: 2020-05-23
Vote end: 2020-06-06

This proposal is the second one about the tower:type=* key cleaning.
You may be interested to read more about it

Proposal

It is proposed to introduce the key line_management=* to be used with power=line, power=minor_line and power=cable nodes only to describe particular topologies around their supports or significant points along their path. This includes nodes which are tagged power=tower and power=pole.

Proposed values are straight, branch, split, transpose, cross, transition and termination which correspond to visible and practical situations on the ground (see examples below). Defaults to straight.

These values are applicable for overground and overhead power lines, as well as underground power cables.

Chosen terminology won't prevent tags usage on different features later, but that is not within the scope of this proposal.

This proposal also discourages (deprecates) the use of several values of tower:type=* and pole:type=* in combination with any power support:

Rationale

Line management is about the how lines are arranged on a given support. They can branch, cross, split or their wires can transpose.
Here are some definitions in use in power domain, useful to define some values of this proposal

  • Branch line (601-02-10) : A side line connected to a main one to feed some consumers hard to reach with main network
  • Transposition (466-05-10) : A change in the conductor/bundles configuration of a line. The transposition may be intended to preserve grounding or interference conditions (power/telecom lines)
  • Termination (461-10-01) : End part of a line intended to properly ensure safety and insulation on a point of connection on a dedicated support.

OSM currently describes the management of power lines mainly with multi-purpose key tower:type=*. The same key is used to make the difference between a castle and a telecommunication towers based on their structure and material. This is inconsistent and less usable for mappers.
This information is useful for telecom wires too. Then it's more appropriate to deal with standard cable management terms and share those concepts without specialised terminology for each domain.
It is proposed to use a new line_management=* key to free tower:type=* and pole:type=* from defining how lines are arranged. This would allows us to keep tower:type=* to define towers shape and to extend line management concepts to other kind of supports like poles, portals or even terminal anchors. Current available tagging describes those situations globally without any specific terminology regarding power nor telecom. This proposal is mainly usable for utilities networks and this work could easily be extended with more specific terms or be used for other fields of knowledge also with further proposals.
Proposed key doesn't imply you will always be able to determine a management pattern. Proposed values are intended for clear situations where mappers will be able to define how lines are arranged. This won't be suitable for messy supports with dozen of cables coming from everywhere.
Among other things, current tower:type=crossing is used to describe individual towers designed to make lines crossing large obstacles like rivers. As it's not a matter of topology nor proper line management, it's proposed to move it through height=* and design=* which give a better description for such infrastructure. Note that no new design=* are proposed to match those situations.

Simple supports with no particular line management situation aren't supposed to get line_management=* key.

Concrete benefits

  • Share equivalent concepts between many fields of knowledge (power, telco, cable transport / towers, poles, masts, terminal and portals) and provide to mappers a common set of terms matching what they will actually see on the field.
  • Ability to describe on the same feature how lines are arranged and simultaneously how they are attached (with line_attachment=*) without get stuck on domain specific terminology. This isn't possible with single tower:type=* which would take anchor or branch but not both simultaneously.
  • Split according values to a dedicated key and free tower:type=*, pole:type=* with less related values. Prevent the definition of same kind values to :type keys.

Tagging

Use line_management=* on nodes only, corresponding to power supports or junction points of underground cables and eventually remove any use of tower:type=*
Values shoud reflect following situations:

Picture Key/Value Incompatible on the same support level with Description
Line management straight.png line_management=straight straight, transition, split, cross Default and optional value for any line going straight on a given support or point. Direction of line can change at the support.


Some incompatibilities apply: line_management=straight|transition should be line_management=split|transition in consistency with line_management=split definition.

Line anagement branch.png
Line management branch2.png
line_management=branch branch, cross Any Y connection.


A side line going coming from a different direction connects to a continuous main line on a support or on a junction box underground. It includes situations where a branch underground cable connect to the main overhead circuit with location:transition=yes help (and vice versa) or loops connecting two or more power systems coming from the same direction.

Line management split.png line_management=split split, straight, cross Two or more distinct lines split apart towards different paths. Incoming circuits have to come from the same origin and diverge.


It includes situations where some of the incoming circuits go underground with location:transition=yes, this value should be combined with transition
This value regards nodes connecting lines with different circuits=* and cables=* values.

Line management transpose.png line_management=transpose transpose, cross The conductor bundles' arrangement changes at the support
Management termination.png line_management=termination termination, cross A termination implies one or more lines are anchored on a given support with no connection between them.

A support with location:transition=yes, connecting an underground cable to one of the incoming overhead lines is not a termination, see transition, branch or split instead.

Line management transition.png line_management=transition straight, transition, cross A transition is a location change, often when overhead line connects to underground cables.

This value is only suitable for overhead lines that stop. For underground cables connecting to a continuous overhead line, see branch. This value should be used in combination with existing location:transition=yes.

Line management cross.png line_management=cross Can't be combined. Incompatible with all values This value indicates there is no connection between two or more lines coming from different directions sharing a given support at different levels.
It avoids the use of tags like connection=no. It is intended to simplify tagging by avoiding values line_management=(straight)|(straight) (complete cross), line_management=(straight)|(termination) (incomplete Y).


If levels are connected, it's a simple branch and line_management=branch applies.

Transition supports aren't terminations

It is assumed that a support connecting an underground cable to an overhead line isn't a proper termination for sake of consistency with split, branch and transition definitions.
Simple transition supports should only use the line_management=transition tag and see line_attachment=anchor and location:transition=* to complete tagging.

Use cases

Level composition matrix

As many situations exists in reality, it can be useful to combine (line_management=<left value>|<right value>) some values to reflect what actually happen on a given support level according to compatibility rules introduced upside.
This table indicates situations corresponding to left value in rows and right value in columns.
Each line refers to an independant line system (a circuit, for power lines, 3 cables in alternative 3-phases system). Black ones are mandatory and grey ones are optional elements which don't change the value selection if they exist.
All parallels lines are draw with a single OSM way in practice with appropriate cables=* and circuits=* values.
You won't see cross as it can't be combined with any other value for a given level.

Left & right are established following common principles of OSM.

Value straight branch split transpose termination transition
straight straight Line management compose straight branch.png split Line management compose straight transpose.png Line management compose straight termination.png split/transition
or simpler split
if several transitions
branch Line management compose branch straight.png branch Line management compose branch split.png Line management compose branch transpose.png Line management compose branch termination.png Line management compose branch transition.png
split split Line management compose split branch.png split Line management compose split transpose.png Line management compose split termination.png Line management compose split transition.png
transpose Line management compose transpose straight.png Line management compose transpose branch.png Line management compose transpose split.png transpose Line management compose transpose termination.png Line management compose transpose transition.png
termination Line management compose termination straight.png Line management compose termination branch.png Line management compose termination split.png Line management compose termination transpose.png termination Line management compose termination transition.png
transition split/transition
or simpler split
if several transitions
Line management compose transition branch.png Line management compose transition split.png Line management compose transition transpose.png Line management compose transition termination.png transition

Real life chart

Finally, let's illustrate this proposal with a concrete usecase summarizing many individual possibilities.
Further thinking is required to address complex situations, as line management can mix several configurations on different tower levels.
Once a little more work will be done on Matrix_values, proposed values for line_management=* could be used together to better reflect situations occuring on the same tower/pole support node.
Furthermore, it is not mandatory to use this tag on any particular support node. Use this key only when you are sure that the value is suitable for the situation you found.

You'll find below a chart illustrating what you shoud see on ground and how to use corresponding line management values.

Power line chart pole termination.png Termination pole

power=pole
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=termination
Power line chart pole loop.png Branch pole

power=pole
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=branch

Y connection then it's a branch.
Power line chart pole split.png Split pole

power=pole
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=split
Power line chart pole branch.png Branch pole

power=pole
line_attachment=(pin)|(anchor)
line_management=branch
Power line chart pole cross.png Cross pole

power=pole
line_attachment=(pin)|(anchor)
line_management=cross
Power line chart tower transpose.png Transposition tower

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=transpose

Edition management

Affected pages

Values to be replaced

Obsolete tag Usage volumetry Used for ? New tag(s) to use
tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=tap) 550 on 2020-01-18 A side anchored line connect to the main one line_management=branch
tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=split) 1656 on 2020-01-18 Two or more independent circuits continue in different directions line_management=split
tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=cross) 204 on 2020-01-18 Two or more independent circuits share a common support without connection line_management=cross
tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=loop) 108 on 2020-01-18 Split point of two unconnected lines feeding a given substation towards two different directions line_management=split
tower:type=termination 5064 on 2020-01-18 The line ends on a dedicated support line_management=termination
tower:type=transposing 545 on 2020-01-18 Conductors or bundles configuration or position changes line_management=transpose
tower:type=crossing 1412 on 2020-01-18 A support is significantly higher and stronger to allow a line to cross an obstacle like rivers height=* + design=*
pole:type=branch ( + branch:type=tap) 915 on 2020-01-18 A side anchored line connects to the main one line_management=branch
pole:type=branch ( + branch:type=split) 323 on 2020-01-18 Two or more independent circuits continue in different directions line_management=split
pole:type=branch ( + branch:type=cross) 52 on 2020-01-18 Two or more independent circuits share a common support without connection line_management=cross
pole:type=branch ( + branch:type=loop) 4 on 2020-01-18 Split point of two unconnected lines feeding a given substation towards two different directions line_management=split
pole:type=termination 1374 on 2020-01-18 The line ends on a dedicated support line_management=termination

A whole total of 12 200 objects have to be edited, which doesn't sound so important regarding the >10 million power towers in OSM and the remaining potential to be mapped worldwide

Examples

Photo Location Tagging Note
Pylons and power cables - geograph.org.uk - 221813.jpg UK

power=tower
line_attachment=suspension
(optional line_management=straight)

A classical power tower with straight two circuits line.
Transposition with anchor attachment Germany

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=transpose

A classical power conductor transposition with help of anchor attachment
Simple power line split UK

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=split

Two independant power systems split at the tower
Actual split with anchor attachment Germany

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=split

Four splits on two separate towers. If you look at connection, you'll see there is no Y connection and it's only independent power systems that change of direction
French 400kV tower hanging insulators.jpg France

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=branch

A side line connects to the main one (the presence of hanging insulator in the red circle doesn't affect this line management situation)
Power portal substation transition.jpg France

power=insulator
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=transition

The concrete portal should be mapped as a way and the line should connect to it on a power=insulator node. A bay line (inside the substation) connects to the incoming line, it's a transition from the management point of view
Power tower split transition.jpg France

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=split|transition
location:transition=yes

Two power circuits split on this tower with an underground transition
Power pole split transition.jpg France

power=pole
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=split
location:transition=yes

A particular situation becoming common thank to networks burring : an old overhead switch anchor pole has been refurbished to split the original overhead line in two sections and connect them to underground cables toward an indoor switching busbar. It's a split since two lines comming for a same origin go different ways.
A termination with a transformer France

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=termination

A medium voltage power line terminates on a concrete pole to connect to a distribution transformer
A transition France

power=tower
line_attachment=anchor
line_management=transition
location:transition=yes

A medium voltage overhead power line connects to an undergound power cable on a pole. It's a straignt connection without situation like branch or split so it's a transition.
Underground power junction Austria

line_management=branch

A side cable, probably a private customer connection, connects to a main underground cable in a junction box.


There is no reviewed power=* value for them, so currently it will only get a single line_management=*.

Missing free illustration.
See this one
node 1693163670
France

line_management=cross

Two different lines share a single tower here and cross their directions. It's an actual cross tower.
Crossed wires, Nursling - geograph.org.uk - 1722670.jpg UK

-

This is not a valid situation for line_management=cross. Lines have to share a common support without connection to be considered crossing.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved unanimously with 20 votes for.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eric B. (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --PanierAvide (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --CjMalone (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lmagreault (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AlexModesto73 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Should we really deprecate such a common tag? --Floridaeditor (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion goes on Talk page Fanfouer (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --TOGA (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gileri (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Renecha (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Crochet.david (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Soldier Boy (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --liotier (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --VileGecko (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --hendrik-17(talk) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Sommerluk (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)