User talk:Gazer75

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Revision 1596199 on power=tower

Hi, could you please give details on why the revision 1596199 on power=towerhas been undone please?
I thought it was ok as tower designs have to go on design=*. They are now redundant between power=tower and design=*. All the best Fanfouer (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Didn't notice that all the designs had moved to separate page.
Why are now tower:type= wrong tagging for power towers? I have not seen this discussed anywhere.
There is basically no way to tag tower types if this key can not be used. The values used for power towers are not the same as for com towers.
Such big page edits should be talked about before to avoid confusions. Gazer75 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I would agree to not move tower:type values, but these should be the only ones left on the power=tower page. design=* got its own values on its own page.
As there is no meaning change or key introduced, we should consider this edit as wiki maintenance without so many discussion needed Fanfouer (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I reverted it. Is that okay?--geozeisig (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Still think it is better to have it all on one page. If not then you really need to fix the fact that all the tower:type= examples get lost. Gazer75 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The page design=* contains the information. The information should not redudantly stand in two places. There have been other improvements that you can not list individually. So I marked it with update. --geozeisig (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see now that tower:type=* has been updated to show this in combination with power towers. I have no issues with the change to the power=tower page now. With the wiki being so slow as of late even more page lookups is not ideal. With it all in one place you load the page for power towers and never have to open more pages. As long as no important information is lost I guess its fine. Gazer75 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Power substations on power poles

Hi Gazer75, following this discussion on OpenInfraMap issue tracker, I'm currently writing this proposal about using power=substation on power poles. Goal isn't to make substation=* mandatory on every pole with a transformer, but to evaluate how it's going around the world. It's clear that not every network operator considers there is a substation each time they put a transformer on a pole whereas in France, every pole with a transformer is signed as a substation. I intend to complete examples with as many situations as possible. Do you wish to review this and make comments as to find the most suitable solution with us please? Fanfouer (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


Could you provide an example of where it has to be riverbank rather than water=*. --DaveF63 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Any area with intermittent riverbank where you want to also tag the surface of the riverbed that is usually there.
This area is a good example:
You don't show how only riverbank can be used with intermittent. The wiki page I linked to shows it's used with natural=water tags.
water=river is a replacement for riverbank, it doesn't complement it. --DaveF63 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You asked for example where it has to be waterway=riverbank tag instead of using natural=water + water=river yes?
If so then that tagging is a perfect example of this. Water=* has to follow natural=water which is not possible if you already used natural=bare_rock.

small installations

Hi gazer75, I've started two discussions on the topic as you requested. See

Joost schouppe (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)