Proposed features/Quickly Marking Utility Wires
|Definition:||Marking of utility wires for a given street or way.|
|Fast tagging for areas or roads: are there overhead wires or not?|
|Used on these elements|
|Tools for this tag|
This proposal covers a way to mark that a given areas has underground electric and communication wires. Areas of underground utilities are of interest in earthquake or fire hazard zones, to prospective home-buyers, and for generalized 3D renderings. The most specific tag is used: large areas can be tagged with the prevalent style, and individual streets annotated differently.
|utility_wires=underground||Wires are known to run below this street in conduit. Street lights may be present, but wires do run between street light poles.|
|utility_wires=overhead||Wires are visibly strung from pole to pole on this street.|
|utility_wires=unknown||This tag may simply be omitted to indicate unknown.|
|utility_wires=none||Area is not served by electric or communication wires.|
|utility_wires:count=count||Approximate count of wires visible overhead. Count all visible wires regardless of their purpose.|
An entire city, unable to afford underground electrics:
- boundary=administrative (Relation:boundary)
- name=City of Low Income
Which has one central street without wires:
- name=Main Street
An example tagged street is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6400775, within an urban area where all but a few alleys and key corridors have overhead utilities.
Not applicable for this proposal.
A significant downside of this proposal is the potential for duplicate data. If a corridor is marked "underground", but later someone maps the actual underground electric lines, there's a potential for the data to get out of synchronization.
This tagging exists in parallel with the drawing of individual power poles and distribution lines: and nothing stops a user from drawing each individual wire network. However, this tag can get the job done over large areas very quickly.
- Should this be extended to include street light information? Brycenesbitt (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Voting is not open at this time.