From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Deprecation for underground power lines

Continued from Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Difference between cable and line.

Due to some conversations earlier this week dealing with the fact power=cable isn't the best way to describe underground or underwater power lines, I follow the suggestion of User icon 2.svgoligo (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap) to move the discussion here.

What I propose is to deprecate the current usage of power=cable and use power=line + location=underground (or any proper value) instead. Just like we already do for highways or roads and even pipelines on the water management OSM side. This is all about consistency and vocabulary.

You would find the beginning and some additional explanations there Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement Fanfouer 09:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The highway analogy does not hold: for a common person, a highway looks and works like a highway no matter if it's in a tunnel, or not. Whereas a power line on pylons works and looks totally different when compared to underground cabling; one does not normally even see the underground cables, and they only affect those wanting to dig. There is no process for redefining widely used tags, so using power=line will break lots of things. Alv 10:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with saying common mappers won't understand. No problem if it properly described on wiki.
Secondly, why underground highway should appear the same for common persons (what is a really common person?) and not an underground power line? Same question for pipelines. Maybe it's because everyone take the highway or pipeline to go on holiday and never power lines. Shame :)
Furthermore, what will be break by deprecating power=cable? There're only 800 ways versus 100k others described by power=line.
Consistency and versatility are the only two things that can ever be justified against particular situations like power=cable. Fanfouer 11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's irrelevant whether mappers will or won't understand - I'm sure they do. They don't read the wiki. The 180 000 uses of power=line have described a "big thing on pylons" since 2005, and data consumers expect that, and draw them like that, when they are interested. It's easier for you to consider line and cable as equal, if you are only interested in the functional aspect, than it would be to demand that all other consumers (can you send a message to all of them? who are they?) rewrite their style sheets, possibly their processing tools and many would even require a reimport of the whole planet if the location tag was not included in osm2pgsql style in the past. Alv 10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So you mean we must freeze current tagging scheme because it exists style sheets and tools already developed... that’s disappointing. Adding tag location=* on power=line will hardly break anything. Rendering defects will only be visible between when people begin using it and renderers get updated. I see it as a minor inconvenience, but I’d like to see it accepted to improve tagging consistency. --Oligo 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, if users want a stable data-set, they can download an extract of planet. Tagging model should be adapted to infrastructure instead of particular use cases. It must aim to the best consistancy and best versatility as for not postpone such problems to tomorrow. Don't procrastinate, if we don't solve the question now, it will come back stronger later. +1 for Oligo. Fanfouer 13:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You should think wider. You consider only good rendering of a general-purpose map for a common user. It is important task. But not a single task! Not less important task is an ability to use the OSM data for a special-purpose maps or special processing. The consistent tagging model will help to solve these tasks an will not ruin a general-purpose maps. Building specialized energetic GISes is one of many possible examples. --Surly 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Consistancy and versatility are sufficient things. Deprecating power=cable in favor of power=line will result into uniformity of processing and will be more logical. Electroenergetic facility for power transferring which has full set of phases is tagged with power=line for overground lines. Underground lines are the same things. With "cable=*" tag we represent each particular phase of the line. In case of underground line all the phases of a line are hidden within a single cable shell, so we need not separate each phase -- it's sufficient to tag full set of phases. So power=line with location=underground representing such full set is more appropriate for an underground cable than power=cable. --Surly 12:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the wiki, with power=cable, we don't represent each phase of a line. If an undergound cable has 3 phases, you can tag it power=cable + cables=3, the same way you would tag a line with 3 phases power=line + cables=3. Plop76 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That's it. Nevertheless, power=cable represent exactly the same functional thing than power=line. As Surly explained so brilliantly, power=line is more logic and versatile than power=cable. That is the quality we must look for. I've gave details about my point of view previously. Fanfouer 17:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
with power=cable, we don't represent each phase of a line. — yes, but think about terms. Widely adopting cables=* we have established the term "cable" as a prticular phase of a full line. It'll be logically to use the same term in all the cases where it means the same thing. Underground cable bears full set of phases, not a single one. So why we should think about "cable" as a single phase using it in cables=*, and as a set of phases using it in power=cable? It is illogically! We should use them in a consistent manner. --Surly 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the term "cables", i would prefer something like conductors :) Plop76 09:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I think cables=* refers to lives/phases per circuits=* whereas conductor number per circuit is given by wires=*. I agree with you to say "cables" is pretty mistaken and we'd better to write the number of phases.
We must take care of what is intended to be done with power routing system Power_lines#example. Circuits are mapped by relations with ways power=line as a logical layer (all the "per circuit" stuff). It would be a good place to give some relevant logical information about power grids. On ways we should give only physical data without any logical sense (total number of conductors and what else?). The question is to know where the limit between logical and physical is. Fanfouer 13:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Overground location for power cable

The wiki page has recently been updated to remove overground or overhead values from location=* key for power cables.
I think it's a poor idea since high voltage insulated cables are rolled out overhead instead of power lines (uninsulated) between trees or in narrow environments.
Based upon the difference made between cables and lines on OSM, these locations must be restored to maintain the consistency. Fanfouer (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)