User talk:N.plath
Vote on Proposed_features/Substation_functions
I oppose this proposal. Nearly all #Concrete_benefits are red herrings, the usecases can all be done with the current tagging scheme. 1) When the voltage of substation=traction is in the DC range (750–3000 V), a conversion is implicit. All modern railway electrification schemes use AC (15 / 25 kV), which don't need conversion. Implicit things must not be tagged! --N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Except that voltage=* is encouraged to be fill with the highest value on substations. Will you agree on a massive retagging with all involved voltage while the proposal is blamed on 2k object re-tagging? Do beginners and not knowledgable mappers will understand these implicit things? Fanfouer (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some systems in the DC range (according to you) use AC : Gornergratbahn & Jungfraubahn. Thus it's not possible to deduce anything from voltage, as proposed Fanfouer (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting the only exceptions. They are using three-phase electric power (from the beginnings of railway electrification).--N.plath (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
2) Low Voltage DC networks are currently _just fictional_. When built, they will probably use existing substations, but add a new power=converter. So they can be tagged just like any existing DC converter station currently in OSM. --N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is to get if the converter substation is part of a distribution or a transmission. Furthermore, power=converter implies it's transmission while it's not always true : traction and upcoming distribution are examples of this despite your scepticism. Fanfouer (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
3) substation=generation for step-up substations at power plants is in use since 2014. It's not OK to prop up a proposal with somebody else's ideas. --N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
4) Share equivalent transmission, distribution and delivery concepts between power and pipelines. This is not beneficial at all, only adds complexity. --N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So where are the benefits? The above ones are made-up and either no benefits or not invented here.--N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good practice page reverts
The changes a few weeks back at Good practice were discussed on the mailing list in June and early July 2019. If you are not subscribed you can read the relevant archive at [[1]] and [[2]].
Do you have any specific objections to any particular changes, or suggestions for improvements? I didn't see any responses to the particular issues with the page that I wanted to address, most of which were undiscussed additions of new sections relatively recently which make the Good practice page excessively long.
Please respond at Talk:Good_practice#Please_wait_for_input --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)