Talk:Key:line attachment

More values

There are a lot more different possible attachments: https://www.hoogspanningsnet.com/techniek/isolatorophanging/. The page is in Dutch but the pictures make it clear. In order: single chain straight down, double chain straight down, half-anchor, anchor, hanging anchor, V suspension, tetrahedron suspension. As shown in the pictures, attachment can even be different for different phase conductors of the same line. —M!dgard [ talk ] 14:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I didn't find any different attachment than those proposed with this key. To be clear, this key isn't intended to give exact attachment solution names (and isn't dedicated to transmission power lines) but to classify them. For instance hanging anchor, half-anchor, anchor correspond to line_attachment=anchor. It may be a good idea to propose anchor=hanging, anchor=half and so on to be more precise.

such situations is described as line_attachment=(suspension)|(anchor) and actually lacks another key like cables=(2)|(4) to state how cables are arranged on the tower (but design=* with a precise reference to operator's supports catalog can link to the same information). Fanfouer (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

line_attachment = none

We miss one standard case: no cables/line connected. Even it doesn't come to mind in the first place and seems to be unimportant. It helps to note there is no line and this value is not simply missing. So I suggest: line_attachment=none. Example: please use your favorite search engine with "zauberlehrling strommast" and you will find pictures of a structure. This could also be used for old infrastructure, where the electric wires are missing (removed), but towers are still there and will be for at least a year. This would be abandoned:power=line on the way and line_attachment=none on nodes.

I am not aiming at new lines, where tower already build and waiting to be finished. --Bahnpirat (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I spend a little time to think about it and understand the usecase. Thank you to bring this here, I didn't ever immagine it when proposing line_attachment key.

To me there is no problem to add this value in regard power supports are expected to support lines and situations where no line is visible and tower is left in place are not usual. You can create the page and add exemples with pictures as to not face arguments like if nothing is visible, add nothing. Fanfouer (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Case example question

Which value for line_attachment=* is the right one for this example case: File:Power pole line attachment example.png. Thank you --MalgiK (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

While checking the tagging scheme second time i'm now quite sure it is line_attachment=anchor, but the next level is to find the right line_management=* value - is it termination or transition? --MalgiK (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Both lines are anchored on the pole so line_attachment=anchor would be fine indeed. Things get harder fast on utility poles supporting many lines that may be anchored, supported or pined on the same pole. Fortunately it's not your situation.

Regarding line_management=*, I would use line_management=transition since both lines also go underground, don't you? Fanfouer (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)