Proposed features/Power transmission refinement
|Power transmission refinement|
|Tagging:||power=[[Tag:power=> power=line, power=cable, voltage=*|> power=line, power=cable, voltage=*]]|
|Rendered as:||Identical to power=line and power=cable|
This proposal aims to clarify the current usage of the power=* key in electricity transmission context and replace some other obsolete values such as power=minor_line.
This is the second main version of the proposal : the first one was rejected on 2013 November 1. Voting and feedbacks are still visible at the bottom of this page.
This proposal is now abandoned due to its size and the numerous topics it impacts. Please have a look to following documents for further discussion.
This document shouldn't be updated any more. Updates are now applied in the two subsequent proposals.
Large above ground power transmission towers and their conductors are common navigational references (used by hikers and pilots for example). These facilities are widely mapped. Draw one line to represent the wires hanging off a string of poles, then add nodes along the line to represent towers. When mapping from an air photo it is often helpful to look for the shadow cast by each tower: the node should placed at the intersection of the shadow and the apparent base of the tower.
- For major transmission lines: draw a line in OpenStreetMap and tag it power=line, and add power=tower or power=pole on nodes representing towers or poles.
- Use only one line in OpenStreetMap, even if there are multiple wires on a string of poles. Additional tagging for number of conductors (wires) is optional and described below.
- Small and roadside distribution lines (particularly those with poles no taller than a wooden electrical pole) are not widely mapped. If mapped, tag the line with power=line as major lines, and for the pole nodes use power=pole.
- If known, add operator=* to say who is operating the line. owner=* may be different.
- If known, add voltage=*.
- Don't create relations for power lines. Power lines have to be represented with power=line or power=cable only.
Wikipedia and IEC define power transmission infrastructures in these terms:
- A power line (601-03-03, also referred as an electric line) is an arrangement of cables for transferring electricity between sources and loads. A power line may be consists in multiple circuits.
- A cable (461-06-01) is an assembly of several conductors insulated within an assembly protection. It is generally designed to carry power underground.
- A circuit is a set of conductors bundle, 1 for each phase of a multiple phase system and 1 for neutral if present. It is designed for transmitting a given power between two point of a system.
- A bundle (466-10-20) is an assembly of several conductors which is the base item of all stuff exposed here.
- A conductor (466-10-21) is an element which carries electric current. It has often a very bigger length than his cross-section dimensions (e.g. copper wire).
- A neutral conductor ( 826-14-07 826-14-07) is a special conductor connected to the neutral point in a polyphase system. It can contribute to power distribution (and be part of a circuit) if present. Most of time in industrial power transmission systems, the earth is the ground conductor and circuits are only composed of phase conductors.
- A ground conductor (466-10-25) is a security element which carries default electric currents or even lightning strokes when aerial. It can be grounded on every support or just regularly all along the line or cable path. It doesn't carry any current when line or cable are running normally and can't be part of a circuit.
- Voltage (121-11-27) is the electric potential difference between two points and it's measured in volts.
- A power tower (466-08-01) is a support which may be made of such material as steel, wood, concrete, and comprising a body which is normally four-sided, and cross-arms.
- A power pole (466-07-01) is a vertical single member support in wood, concrete, steel or other material, with one end buried in the ground.
- Power transmission (601-01-09) is bulk transfer of energy from power plants to consumption places.
- Power distribution (601-01-10) is the transfer of energy to consumers inside a consumption place.
The best way to use them in OSM is to keep those simple definition and build a consistent tagging model.
It's not what is currently used, overhead and underground lines are using fairly different models:
- power=line only identify aerial power lines.
- power=cable documents integrated (indoor, tunnels, underground) power lines with insulated conductors.
- location=* and layer=* tags are not used here although there are very common use cases in many other fields of knowledge in OSM.
- voltage=* is currently used to document exploitation voltage of power lines & cables.
The initial draft started 2011 June 16 by FK270673 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.). Thanks to him, Fanfouer (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) got full ownership of the proposal and start completing it. Here is a summary of all the removed stuff in this new version.
In the early hours of RFC, it was intented to deprecate power=tower and power=pole in favor of man_made=tower and man_made=pole. Pros argued that towers and poles are far less linked to power than conductors themselves. Thus, such features should be moved to man_made=*.
This was finally removed from this proposal due to the lack of consensus around it, and the pretty mess to retag millions of features.
In its first final version, this proposal intended to unify all power lines way of mapping behind power=line.
This was rejected, due to the well establishment of power=cable and the need to distinguish overground features from buried ones.
It intended to introduce new tags conductors=* and bundles=* respectively in replacement of wires=* and cables=*. This was removed due to a lack of necessity despite a logical way of thinking.
If the voltage of a power line is unknown, Schusch suggested to add low, medium, and high as possible values for voltage=*.
Some enhancement are needed to setup a consistent power model for transmission and routing.
This proposal is focused on the transmission infrastructure whereas the routing one is focused on power circuits, power paths and routing through the grids.
The only point discussed here is physical infrastructure (power lines), routing doesn't matter.
- Replace power=minor_line by power=line to get rid of any arbitrary voltage threshold behind "minor".
- Give to each line and cable an usage=* to indicate in which part of the network the feature is operating.
- Modify the definition and types of power=tower: termination tower type may be intended in some cases by transition substation type. For more info, see Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Substation.
- Replace (actually before it was documented on wiki) tower=air_to_ground since this is also intended by the transition substation type. For more info, see Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Substation and tower=power_transition or pole=power_transition.
- voltage=* should become recommended in any power=* object.
All those modifications would imply a little adaptation work for data consumers. We aim to be compliant with IEC definitions here and current model is not. If users wouldn't like to change their processes, they can use a current export of planet.osm. Nevertheless, re-tagging wouldn't be done until a long time.
This proposal is fully consistent with the early adopted circuits=* and introduce necessarily changes to introduce power routing with them .
Tagging is very important and first of all setup in a consistent way. We should take care of existing features, reuse them as often as we can but this proposal aims to refine model and will force us to re-tag some of these features.
Secondly, power lines are the main element of power transmission.
It's really important to have a reliable and consistent model to show them up on the map.
We'll expose a two-axis tagging model for power lines : overhead lines and underground/undersea cables.
Let's answer the questions :
- What is installed on towers/poles ?
- What is buried under my feet ?
... in terms of circuits, bundles and conductors.
Please note the stuff above is dedicated to describe the whole line. The point isn't to describe each different circuit which may be installed on it. Circuits description will be available with new in Power routing proposal
The goal here is to improve versatility of current model and to ease work for Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal which is coming too.
First of all, here are the common tags used for a power line. They are all consistent with the case "several circuits share the same tower/pole". We assume that conductors of a given circuit are designed to carry the same power. Thus, all conductors of a given circuit have the same number of conductors/same conductor cross-section dimensions.
|power||line||It's a power line||mandatory|
|line||bay, busbar||Power line specificity. Mostly used in substations environement||optional|
|usage||transmission, distribution, ...||Power line usefulness. See below for possible values||recommended|
|operator||operator||The operator of the power line.||recommended|
|layer||...||The power line's level on the map.||optional|
|circuits||...||The number of power circuits on the power line. 1 circuit = 3 phases conductors in 3-phasis system. Neutral conductors can be part of one or several circuits whereas ground conductors aren't. See the tag's page for more information.||optional|
|voltage||Voltage in volts||The voltage at which each circuit of the power line is operated separated by ; . It's strongly encouraged to add this value according to what it is said below.||recommended|
|cables||...||The number of conductor bundles on the whole line without any circuit consideration.||optional|
|wires||...||The number of conductor in bundles on the whole line without any circuit consideration.||optional|
|frequency||...||The frequency at which the power line is operating (separated by ; if different circuits don't have the same frequency)
Please note that frequency=0 is correct and dedicated to direct current power lines.
|neutral_conductors||0, 1, 2...||Number of neutral conductors which are part of the power line.||optional|
|ground_conductors||0, 1, 2...||Number of ground conductors above power conductors to avoid lightnings to hit power line itself.||optional|
|gas_insulated||yes||Use this tag for gas insulated power lines using pressurized SF6 or SF6/nitrogen gas as insulation medium. Gas insulation is typically used for bay lines or busbars in substations.||optional|
When going through cities, power lines aren't going aerial but underground, underwater or even in tunnels.
Conductors may be grouped inside an insulation sleeve and distances between them are strongly reduced.
Please note we don't make any circuit merging here : a power=cable feature is ideally mono-circuit (circuits=1 by default). Underground is often overcrowded by existing networks and it's hard to find enough place for multi-circuits power cables on a whole path. That's why several underground circuits between two substations won't necessarily go the same geographical way through cities.
|power||cable||It's a power cable||mandatory|
|usage||transmission, distribution, ...||Power cable usefulness. See below for possible values||recommended|
|operator||operator||The operator of the power cable.||recommended|
|location||underground, indoor, underwater or tunnel . Default is underground||The power cable location||recommended|
|layer||...||The power cable's level on the map.||optional|
|voltage||Voltage in volts||The voltage at which the power cable is operating. It's strongly encouraged to add this value according to what it is said upside.||recommended|
|cables||...||The number of conductor bundles in the whole cable without any circuit consideration.||optional|
|circuits||1 by default||The number of circuits in the cable path.||optional|
|wires||...||The number of conductor in bundles in the whole cable without any circuit consideration.||optional|
|frequency||...||The frequency at which the power cable is operating
Please note that frequency=0 is correct and dedicated to direct current power cables.
|neutral_conductors||0, 1, 2...||Number of neutral conductors which are part of the power cable.||optional|
|ground_conductors||0, 1, 2...||Number of ground conductors part of the power cable to avoid parasites currents.||optional|
|gas_insulated||yes||Use this tag for gas insulated power cables using pressurized SF6 or SF6/nitrogen gas as insulation medium. Gas insulation is typically used in indoor, tunnel or underground locations.||optional|
|usage||transmission 601-01-09||Set the line as a wide link between cities to transmit power between power plants and consumption places. voltage=* is typically between 1000 kV and 100 kV.|
|distribution 601-01-10||Set the line as a local link distributing power between local and substation=minor_distribution substations. voltage=* is typically between 100 kV and 10 kV.|
|minor_distribution||A minor distribution line link consumers to substation=minor_distribution substations. It distributes power in suburbs in very short distances.|
|traction||The line is dedicated to traction activities with its own particular voltage=* and frequency=*.|
power=minor_line and power=minor_cable replacement
Power lines and cables dimensions are mainly influenced by a scale factor : voltage. Distance between conductors and distance between supports and conductors depends on the voltage the line is supposed to carry.
In OSM, voltage=* tag should be the only piece of information which allow mappers to map this scale factor. Nevertheless the usefulness of the line or cable question is left without answer.
Actually, power=minor_line is only a declination of power=line regarding its voltage and sometimes its usage. Furthermore, it's the only "scaled" value in power=*. It must be replaced by common power=line for two main reasons :
- There are not just "big overhead power lines" and "residential distribution" in power landscape. A wide range of features, designed for the voltage they are supposed to carry as explained above, exist and enhance the importance of "low voltage lines" with minor_line beside the rest in power=line don't represent reality at all.
- Everyone is free to hide whatever he wants behind the minor_line voltage threshold. Data consumers won't be aware of this and will have to gather heavy detailed information about local specifications to know which voltage is really in use.
That's why this proposal is extending the definition of usage=* to give more information. Mappers can give more details about the theoretical power line usefulness without dealing with, sometimes complex, voltage considerations.
It's possible to determine the value of built-in voltage=* of a power line by looking at two main design constraints:
- First, insulation chains' length
- Secondly, conductors spacing.
The main rule is just like that : about 1m per 100 kV.
According to picture, all the mapper has to do is looking at common power voltages running in its country to see which is the closest value for 1m and 2.5m. In France :
- 1m = 100 kV => 90 kV or 63 kV depending of the place you're located in.
- 2.5m = 250 kV => 225 kV for regional power lines in the whole mainland.
To be more accurate, it is possible to look on tower's base where the voltage is often available.
Referring to IEC definitions quoted above, a tower is a support that is normally four-sided and cross-arms built in wood or metal instead of a pole which is a single vertical element built in concrete or often in wood.
Such tags indicate structure of element and NOT its usage on a particular line (mainly depending on voltage).
Both should be used as described, regardless of voltage or any other rendering problem according to what RM87 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) explained on talk.
Here are a remainder of most used tags for both:
Terminals are useful to link power lines to building in an aerial way according to the picture.
They often can be encountered when connecting an overhead line to an indoor substation
They must be tagged accordingly :
|power||terminal||It's a power terminal||mandatory|
|ref||Terminal reference||Power terminal reference as seen in situation||optional|
|height||height||The height of the terminal from the ground||optional|
|operator||operator||The power terminal operator's name.||recommended|
Location transitions are very useful when power lines goes aerial and connect to underground or undersea cables.
Such transitions now often occurs with urban and suburbs development but with two main different types.
Fenced transition facilities
Adjacent substation proposal is dealing with it by introducing a dedicated type of transition substation : power=substation + substation=transition.
It represents the fenced area which surrounds the transition facility. Transition characteristics may be written with some other tags, please see the proposal for more information.
Non fenced facilities
|On a power tower||tower=power_transition|
|On a power pole||pole=power_transition|
Features hosted on poles/towers
Sometimes, features like transformers or switches could be hosted at top of poles or towers. This is often observed on local distribution lines.
Use connection=yes to signify there is a connection between power lines sharing the same pole or tower.
It is assumed it won't be possible to distinguish two different connections on the same support but this will be solved with power routing.
Sometimes, sections of power lines can only be a stub where power can't go anywhere.
Two tags should be considered to qualify such towers/poles : tower:type=power_termination and pole:type=power_termination
Aerial junctions and integrated junction box
Every power lines are composed of sections abutted one after the other with junctions. When underground, each junction can be placed in a concrete box as for easing later access and protect the junction itself.
Let's introduce power=junction to map such junction boxes when we can see them during construction works.
You can see an example here.
Connections between lines often occurs and two different circumstances : in free air or directly on supports, poles or towers.
They can be mapped with power=connection when occurring without support.
Have a look to this chapter to see how to map when on tower or poles.
Neutral conductor is a component of AC lines which may be present or not.
Typically on high voltage lines, operators would often choose not to add it because it's expensive. Earth will be the only way for power to go back to power plants and it's better like this.
But neutral will be there on local distribution lines, thus cables=* won't only reflect how many phases/poles we have on that particular lines.
neutral_conductors=* will be useful to precise :
- If neutral conductor is part of the line or not
- How manywe have to remove from cables=* to know how many phases are part of the AC line or how many poles are part of a DC line.
Furthermore, please note when neutral conductor is part of the line, voltage=* should be given between that neutral conductor and phases.
For example, French local distribution lines are 400 V between phases but 220 V between a single phase and neutral conductor. In this particular case, voltage=* should have value 220 V.
Codification schemes worldwide
As for sustainably identify features inside power networks, some existing codification schemes can be used in OSM. You can find details about them right below by following links.
ENTSO-E Energy Identification Code (EIC)
EIC stands for Energy Identification Code and the scheme is used by power transport companies (TSO) in Europe.
Its main advantage is to be common to a large bunch of countries and allow us to locate any feature by using the geographical prefix in the codes.
You can find details on the ENTSO-E website
The codes can be set on features with the ref:ensto:eic=* key.
Guidelines for line mapping
To avoid confusion in routing and navigation tools, we must adopt strict guidelines to map power lines (like any other linear stuff like roads or railroads).
One line = one situation
Each power=line must group features with the same characteristics, especially the same number of circuits. When a tag key or value changes (or needs to be added/removed), the line feature must end and a new line start so that the properties can be correctly tagged, just as with any other feature in OSM.
As Alv (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) suggested on talk, layer=* is needed when there are two different power=line partially sharing some of the poles on some stretch, like in the image on the left. (In the past some suggested not to map these as two ways, but that seems wrong when the other line doesn't touch all the nodes, yet the other line has to touch all of the pole nodes.
Their circuits are not directly connected here. The line mounted higher is maybe 10 to 25 kV, and the lower line (probably 400V) has more densely spaced poles because of the street/footway lamps it feeds. A power line way should only touch the pole/tower nodes that the conductors "touch" (via the insulators, naturally).
The elevation hardly ever corresponds to a building level, except where the line penetrates the wall of the building it was built to feed.
Values to be replaced
|Obsolete tag||Used for ?||New tag(s) to use|
|power=minor_line||Low voltage line||power=line + voltage=* + usage=minor_distribution|
|power=underground_cable||Underground cable||power=cable + location=underground|
|power=underground_cable||Sea cable||power=cable + location=undersea. Please notice that a line could be under the sea floor, such case should be treated like classical terrestrial underground lines with location=underground.|
|power=minor_underground_cable||Low voltage underground cable||power=cable + location=underground + voltage=* + usage=minor_distribution|
|power=tower||A pole on a high voltage line||power=pole at any voltage, it's a pole.|
|power=pole||A tower on a low voltage line||power=tower at any voltage, it's a tower.|
|tower=air_to_ground||A transition between aerial and underground||tower=power_transition|
|tower:type=termination||A tower terminating a power line||tower:type=power_termination|
|tunnel=yes||Power cables hosted in a human accessible tunnel||location=tunnel|
This table is a guideline for replacement only. Take it with caution and don't do mass edit.
Let's try to expose current projects, maybe under construction, and legacy ones to give useful case studies to mappers.
20 kV overhead distribution lines
French "Cotentin-Maine" 400 kV project
Contentin-Main project is a power line built as for improve power transit from Flamanville new PWR nuclear reactor. It consists in a 100% overhead lines, two 3 phases circuits linked to power substations of French power grid operator, RTE France.
Underground power lines : Annecy'nergie 2013
Annecy'nergie 2013 is another project conduced by RTE and it aims to put underground all suburbs overhead lines, like in many other French cities.
Furthermore, some substations were created to sustain increasing place demand of electricity.
- OSM : https://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.90273097157478&lon=6.111064553260803&zoom=18
- Proposal conformity changeset : https://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16753941
- Topological infos could be find here : http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/images/projets/plaquette_riverain_VDEF.pdf
Local power distribution lines
Such local lines support power transit between last transformer to consumers.
They can run along roads or be underground, especially in cities or suburbs
When distribution is done with alternative current, a neutral conductor is part of the lines.
Voltage is here given between neutral and phase !
Typical HVDC power line
HVDC power lines are used to carry power at high voltage and through long distances.
They are currently highly recommended due to the massive intercontinental power lines roll-out.
- OSM : https://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/242127520
- Proposal conformity changeset : https://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/18357639
- power=* : Update the page and features list.
- power=line : Update the page.
- power=cable : Update this page.
- power=minor_line : Update the page : indicate this value should be replaced by power=line + usage=minor_distribution + voltage=* and remove it from power features page.
- power=tower : Update the page
- power=pole : Update the page
- power=terminal : Create the page
- tower:type=* : Update the page and replace the termination value by the power_termination value.
- pole:type=* : Create the page and start with the power_termination value.
- tower=power_transition : Add to power=tower page.
- pole=power_transition : Add to power=pole page.
- neutral_conductors=* : Add to power=line page.
- power=junction : Create this page and add it to the power features page.
- power=marker : Add to power=cable page and add it to the power features page.
- power=connection : Create the page, document connection=* too and add it to the power features page.
- usage=* : Update the page and add values dedicated to power domain.
- WikiProject_Power_networks : Split the page between different kind of power concerned.
- Power_lines : Merge the page with WikiProject_Power_networks
- Power : Merge the page with WikiProject_Power_networks
Rendering and Tools/Renderers affected
- power=line features should be rendered only when they are located overhead. Common rendering rules may choose to avoid underground/sea stuff (or show them with light dashes) since they can't be seen by people. Special theme maps can adapt rendering to show the location difference.
- power=line features thickness on maps should be computed from voltage=* value : high voltage lines should be rendered a bit wider than low voltage ones, as now with power=minor_line.
- power=pole should be rendered with a big plain grey dot instead of power=tower which can be rendered the same as now.
- JOSM : Update presets for underground lines (post approval ticket creation)
- ID : Idem
- Update mapnik / mapCSS definitions to show power lines as described above.
- Update at least the following other stylesheets similarly: openstreetbrowser.org, freietonne.de, 4umaps.eu, hikebikemap.de, openstreetmap.de "OSM deustscher stil" style, Reit- und Wanderkarte, latlon.org, osmorg.crite.net, openorienteeringmap "Pseud-O" style, their own style at lightmap.uni-hd.de, and wikimedia toolserver(?) "black and white osm".
Please post in the discussion page for any comments.
Voting has not started yet.
First vote. From 2013 October 18 to 2013 November 1
8 pros against 20 cons : the proposal is rejected.
Work will keep going on this and take in account all the feedbacks exposed here.
- I oppose this proposal. I don't like the depreciation of minor_line --chris66 (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Bigfatfrog67 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --hendrik-17(talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. As I've argued within the comment phaze: Even if otherwise a sound proposal, two things are a no-no. 1) There are no easy-to-distinguish guidelines for "very high" to "low" - how would your grandmother know which one to use? If they can't tag properly, consumers can't use the tag at all (see also Talk:Verifiability#problem_with_concept for an old 2009 example with "tall" and "average", which are values equal to the ones proposed in this case.) 2) A "big overhead wire on big pylons" is physically totally different from a "underground invisible linear something built by the power transmission company" - the tag should be different, as it has been to date. Alv (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Three problems: 1) "cable" vs "line". I agree with Alv here. From the perspective of mappers overhead power lines and underground cables are very different things. The first is a very visible thing that most mappers would map. The second is essentially "non-existent". Further, the proposal would immediately break existing rendering, as the cables will suddenly be rendered as overhead lines. From a specialist (power engineer) viewpoint you could argue that they are conceptually the same thing, but for the normal mapper they are definitely not. 2) The new "bundles" and "conductors" tags are very confusing. I initially suggested (and now regret that) to replace the "cables" and "wires" keys by "conductors" and "bundle" (singular!) but you have interchanged the meaning of those terms making it very confusing. 3) You suddenly introduce a new primary "line" key for junction boxes and markers. We discussed this on  some days ago (I didn't notice that you were talking about a new primary tag, not an attribute tag for power=line). "line" is currently used as an additional attribute tag for different features (power=line, highway=bus_stop, type=route relations). It would be a very bad thing to introduce it as a primary tag. --polderrunner (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --FK270673 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- There's lots of deprecating/renaming of existing usage going on here without any real justification or a real reason for such a heavyweight operation. First of all, the "new system" is supposed to discern minor_line/line from voltage alone, so why there's then a need to unify them at all? Renaming wires/cables is made for the sake matching naming with standard x, the current keys are just as fine but do not need any deprecating. There are plenty of other "misleading" keys in use already such as highway=path etc. and that's not a serious problem! It's not problem to keep using the legacy keys here either! There's no real justification given for removal of power=cable, besides "all lines should be same", which isn't good enough reason especially as there's clear reason why it should NOT be deprecated as has been pointed out many times already! There are also good elements in this proposal though but sadly the redefine everything approach which is far too common nowadays in proposals is making the proposal totally unsuitable for adopting as is. Ij (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --[[User:Bredy|Bredy] 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Crochet.david (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I pending this proposal. (from a non-electrical POV) The difference between overhead and underground lines should stay in the main tag (same as railway=station, railway=yard and railway=service_station)--rayquaza (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Too many renamings; underwater cables really did mess up the proposal. --Zverik (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. same reason like User Alv --Seawolff (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --4rch (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Has few nice aspects, but IMO not worth tho rename all the existing stuff. The ideas about 110/220/400 V (not kV) are inconsistent.Basstoelpel (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The view and needs of electrical engineers should not overrule the view and needs of cartographers. --EvanE (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Oli-Wan (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Foxxi59 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Oberaffe (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC) For me is a high tension line different to a cable and should be not tagged with the same tag. Everything else is OK for me
- I oppose this proposal. 1) a low voltage cabe in residential area should not be tagged with the same main tag as a high voltage overhead line. So the four main tags power=line, power=minor_line, power=cable and power=minor_cable are very meaningful to distinguish the different types of power lines. 2) The new names for the tags cables=* and wires=* are not better (not more intuitional) than the old names. 3) The tag circuit=* ist not well defined. Do unused conductors count as circuit? 7) In 'definitions' you say 'conductors carries electric current'. Which current carries a ground_conductor=*? 8) So many redefinitions, but no clear definition for power=tower and power=pole? 9) In germany also 220 kV is very high voltage. --Adjuva (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Deprecating a tag with >70k uses is just not acceptable. --Scai (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Farad (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. There's just too much "deprecate" in this proposal. A good proposal must harmonize with what's there instead of trying to overthrow long-established tagging. If this gets accepted, we'll have a ton of people doing mass-edits on the database in an attempt to "fix" all the "deprecated" tags. There are no deprecated tags. --Frederik Ramm (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. See the numerous reasons above. --Dachefte (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. deprecation of minor_line is a no go. level with high/low whatever is completely bogus. Nobody will care and tag whatever they like. Look at tracktype for completely nonsense use of "level" like tags. --Flohoff (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The proposal's purpose is to make mapping clearer, but instead it introduces a lot of complex changes. 1) voltage=very_high, introduced here, does not exists in the approved proposal for substations and will lead to inconsistency in tagging. 2) The new names for the tags cables=* and wires=* are not better (not more intuitional) than the old names. 3) I'm in doubt about tagging of underground lines with power=line. It is correct in the context of electrical engineering and power routing. But it can seriously break map rendering and using data in applications. We should continue our work with this proposal, not simply throw it away. It has a lot of reasoned things. --Surly (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Your introduction says that this proposal "aims to clarify the usage", but you don't mention what needs to be clarified. You also want to deprecate/rename some abundantly used tags but keep secret why they need to be renamed. All in all, the benefits of the changes don't become clear. Concerning the additions, layer=* would fit better than level=*, and pipeline=marker or power=marker seem more consistent than line=marker. I'm ok with the new values for voltage=*, but they contradict your goal to "obtain a more precise way to specify voltage". --Fkv (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I'm sorry but I also disagree on the need of deprecating power=minor_line, power=cable and the other ones as there are not major problems like we had with generator and station. There are however some things I would agree with: the new values for voltage when unknown, and a new tag for power line markers, but I would prefer power=marker. The proposal should be reduced to only add small easy things to map and understand and not deprecate these well-established tag without any serious reason. --Don-vip (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Don't change established and commonly used tags /al (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)