Proposal:Utility poles proposal
|Proposal status:||Approved (active)|
|Definition:||Review existing man_made=utility_pole and complete it with the use of utility=*|
This proposal aims to review and complete man_made=utility_pole with existing utility=* for poles intended for other activities than power transmission and distribution.
They refer to utility networks operations.
It is proposed to make man_made=utility_pole approved on nodes only to describe any pole used to support utility networks lines for telecom or power networks. This key is currently fairly well used (39k objects) and mapping practices sound to be compatible with this proposal.
utility=* will be combined with it to give the main or original purpose of the pole. This key is expected with one unique value for a given pole, according to rationale downside.
It is also proposed to deprecate less used tags regarding telecommunications communication=pole, telephone=pole, telecom=pole and pstn=pole. Mappers will be encouraged to manually replace them by man_made=utility_pole + utility=telecom.
- utility=* to give the main activity for which the pole was installed
- material=* for the material the pole is mostly composed of
- operator=* regarding the company in charge of the pole
- line_attachment=* to describe how lines are attached to the pole
- line_management=* for particular topologies arround poles
- ref=* to mention any reference read on ground
Power networks can be supported by poles or towers. power=pole and power=tower are well established values for that and this proposal won't replace them.
It is nevertheless proposed to make man_made=utility_pole + utility=power implied by power=pole to link power poles to the same concepts as telephone or multi-utility ones.
As to prevent unneeded editing and undiscussed replacement of power=pole by man_made=utility_pole, mappers will be warned to not mix both and preserve power=pole.
Utility poles are obvious features beside roads, in cities or around developed countries. They are supports for power or telecom lines, both metal and fibre to bring electricity or service to households or distant residential areas.
Particular environmental conditions could encourage countries to use them. Seismic Japan or USA West Coast aren't free to dig in the ground to hide their networks so you'll find high skills and strong overhead infrastructure in these areas.
Such features could be easily described in OSM on simple nodes with the help of well developed existing tagging (see upside).
They can be landmarks for hiking and useful data for networks operators as well.
As really common features, OSM need a reliable model to described many different objects. Local projects are already started and make use of man_made=utility_pole.
A pole can support several networks and different utilities. However they are often installed for a given purpose on which some side business come afterwards: we rolled out electricity networks at first and then use the same poles for telephone lines. Those poles remains (utility=power +) power=pole and won't become utility=power;telecom. This information could be obtained by post-processing and aggregating all utilities crossing the node.
A given pole is pretty always operated by a single operator=*, not several. This given operator can make offers to support other utility lines without changing its own responsibility for maintenance or operations or the pole nature.
In practice, mappers are expected to find answers to following questions to get the right value of utility=*:
- Who operates the pole? If the operator is a power operator, then utility=power and so on...
- If the operator operates several utilities and rolls out them at the same time, which one is most impacting pole structure? A power line is heavier than a telephone line for instance, then utility=power.
As it's proposed to use utility=* with a single and the most representative value for each given pole, solutions should exist to link a single pole to numerous different activities and features.
Here is a list extracted from a topic of Talk page to link many activities to poles
- High voltage electricity: pole member of a power=line way
- Lower voltage electricity: pole member of a power=minor_line way
- Coaxial cable carrying TV; telephone & internet: pole member of a way with tags remaining to be defined (telecom=line eventually) + telecom:medium=coaxial
- Metal wire bundles for telephone & T1 internet (called POTS by telephone workers) : pole member of a way with tags remaining to be defined (telecom=line eventually) + telecom:medium=copper
- Fiber optic cables carrying TV; telephone & internet: pole member of a way with tags remaining to be defined (telecom=line eventually) + telecom:medium=fibre
- Electrical transformers: transformer=* on the pole (and eventually substation=*, see Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension)
- CATV or telephone equipment cabinets: street_cabinet=* on the pole
- Street lights highway=street_lamp on the pole
- A fire emergency pull box with a corresponding red light above : not aware of an eventual emergency=* value to add on the pole
- Wires used for local sound system used by local authorities, but that would be an additional way
- Surveillance camera/CCTV: Should find a way to let man_made=utility_pole and man_made=surveillance to coexists on the same feature. However surveillance isn't a proper utility.
- Share equivalent concepts between many fields of knowledge (power, telco, cable transport / towers, poles) and provide to mappers a common set of terms matching what they will actually see on the field.
- Provide a robust platform to generalize existing concepts to both power and telco networks.
Tagging is really simple. Add man_made=utility_pole on each pole, sometimes in replacement of communication=pole or telephone=pole. Also add corresponding main purpose with utility=*, often utility=ŧelecom or utility=power in combination with mandatory power=pole.
See appropriates values for utility=* to state to which activity the pole is mainly designed for.
|man_made||utility_pole||It's a pole supporting utility networks||mandatory (except for power poles)|
|utility||<main utility>||The purpose for which the pole was design or installed||recommended|
|material||<pole material>||The material composing the pole||recommended|
|height||<height>||Pole's height in meters as measured or read on ground||recommended|
|operator||<operator>||Name of the company that operates the pole||optional|
|manufacturer||<Manufacturing company>||Name of company that produced the pole||optional|
|ref||<reference>||Abbreviation / number of the pole as seen on ground.||optional|
|line_attachment||<line attachment>||Attachment mean for lines connected to that pole||optional|
|line_management||<line management>||Particular topology situations around the pole||optional|
- Edit man_made=utility_pole, make it approved except for power poles and add relevant examples.
- Edit power=pole and make it implies man_made=utility_pole and utility=power
- Deprecate communication=pole
- Deprecate telecom=pole
- Deprecate telephone=pole
- Deprecate pstn=pole
Values to be replaced
This proposal is mainly intended to replace many telecom/communications keys with more general man_made=*. See below what values are proposed for manual replacement.
|Obsolete tag||Usage volumetry||Used for ?||New tag(s) to use|
|communication=pole||4 223 on 2020-08-29||A pole mainly designed to support telecom lines||man_made=utility_pole + utility=telecom|
|telephone=pole||1 464 on 2020-08-29||A pole mainly designed to support telecom lines||man_made=utility_pole + utility=telecom|
|telecom=pole||1 131 on 2020-08-29||A pole mainly designed to support telecom lines||man_made=utility_pole + utility=telecom|
|pstn=pole||295 on 2020-08-29||A pole mainly designed to support telecom lines (PSTN means Public Switched Telephone Network)||man_made=utility_pole + utility=telecom|
- French render that show both power and telecom poles beside roads
- I approve this proposal. --Deuzeffe (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Vakonof (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Cquest (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal suggests that all power=pole nodes can have two new tags added: utility=power and man_made=utility_pole. Adding "man_made=utility_pole + utility=power" as synonym of power=pole is not helpful, we should deprecate utility=power because it's an unnecessary duplicate of power=pole and power=tower. It's fine to add tags which are not redundant, but in this case power=pole already clearly indentifies the object as a power utility pole, so adding two more tags does not give any additional information. Since most utility poles are power poles (as mentioned in the proposal) this is a fatal flaw of this concept. --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Agamitsudo (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --DenisHelfer (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --CjMalone (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --GeoMechain (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Glassman (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The handling of poles carrying multiple types of utility lines is not satisfactory. In many cases this won't be decidable - not only for mappers but even objectively: What about poles newly built for multiple purposes? "main" purpose is also often subjective. --Stefanct (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I agree with Stefanct that there needs to be a possibility to tag multiple uses of one pole. It should be simple to implement by removing the "main" requirement from the utility tag and to allow to use a semi-colon separated list of purposes. --Mueschel (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi and thank you both @Stefanct: @Mueschel: to took time to vote here. I'll be happy to discuss about situations you know where main purpose of poles may not be decidable in Talk page. It sounds important to me as utility=* isn't actually intended to describe extensively what the pole supports Fanfouer (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. A very good approach, clarification and improvement of the mess that was evolving regarding poles that are not mainly power poles. It will allow for less ambiguity and improved data to visualise and analyse different utility networks and a more standard and uniform approach for power network tagging. The new man_made=utility_pole and utility=power for new tags implies by default power=pole but does not deprecate it's historical use. It seams to me the other way around power=pole implying by default man_made=utility_pole and utility=power is not always true and a valid replacement. Could be a good idea to clarify this more detailed with some examples if the proposal gets approved.--Bert Araali (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Very useful for limiting travel and saving time and energy during fiber optic deployment studies--AlexModesto73 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. But uncomfortable with no clear deprecation of power=pole--Lmagreault (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)