User talk:Polderrunner

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

E 45 Relation

Dear Polderrunner, You did deleted the E 45 relation on 28th April (Relation: 20773) with the comment "remove relation E45 (too many members). What is your proposal for the E-road project?. Please check how this relation could be restored. With the new 06 Api this should be possible but I do not know how.. Best regards Thomas1950

  • Yes, I'm the guilty, sorry. I was doing a lot of edits in an area crossed by E45 including adding a bridge to E45. When trying to upload my edits the server consistently responded with the dreaded error 412 which normally indicates a problem with a relation. With 2200 members in the E45 relation it is (was) of course completely impossible to find out which member was causing the problem. Further, I assumed it was caused by a limitation in the new API0.6 not accepting so many members. While trying to resolve the situation I'm afraid I managed to delete that relation. I have no idea how it could be resurrected. Anyway, I think it is a very bad idea to have such huge relations as they are difficult to manage and easily get damaged. Better make multiple smaller relations (e.g. one per country and/or per direction) and bundle them into a relation of relations. Polderrunner 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Dear Polderrunner, I had the same issue with the upload and it seems somehow related to the changesets that are new in API 06. What usually works is to download all elements of the relation in JOSM >Edit Relations> download all elements then Edit and upload again. If this would not work that Potlach works. I just had a similar case with the E 15/E81. So might be that JOSM functionality not yet supports API 06 when only a part of the relation is changed/edited.
    • In regards to the max number of members this should be commonly aggreed before such a long relation is deleted. Think about the whole work that was put by the members working on the E-Road project. The whole E-Road project page contains long relations. Therefore please start a discussion on WikiProject Europe/E-road network if you think that the E-road relations should be handled differently.
    • What is your suggestion for the E 45? I would assume that you will support to rebuilt the relation if it cannot be restored. Correct? 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Thomas1950
      • Well, I could help rebuild it if desired. But I would prefer to have a better solution for the E-road relations before spending any effort on it. What is the specific purpose of these enormous relations, anyway? Normal routing applications certainly don't need them (or care about them). Polderrunner 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • As suggested post your thoughts on Talk:WikiProject_Europe/E-road_networkPlease do not delete in the mean time the other E Roads just for editing bridges (The E45 had 561 Versions, so you might have destroyed a lot of work (even if you personaly might think it is not usefull.......)Thomas1950 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Hi I found the old version [[1]]. But i have now idea yet on how to enter all the way in a new relation. BR Thomas1950 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

  • It's back!! Thanks for finding it. Learned a few things about API 0.6, XML and JOSM tonight. Basically I could load the xml into JOSM as an OSM file. Two problems had to be solved: Version number had to be changed to that of the empty ("deleted") relation. Secondly, a few ways had disappeared in the mean time (probably merged with others) causing the upload to fail. After a few iterations each time deleting an offending way from the xml file and reloading into JOSM the upload finally succeeded. I still think those e-road relations need changes. But I'm not going to make a proposal as I have little interest in those relations, mostly consider them a nuisance during editing. Polderrunner 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for putting it back and the description on how you did it. Might be good to put this explanation somewhere else as it could be used for other restoring activities.Thomas195018:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Escape lane

Because I have seen most opposed voters for the proposed highway=escape were against the same type=* tag, I have decided to change it. This mistake is now corrected. Maybe now you are interested in changing your vote ;) --Schumi4ever 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please link images!

Hello Polderrunner,

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the OSM-Wiki! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how: You can pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a Road sign, you add the following code:

[[Category:Road sign]]

This will make the File show up in the categories "Road sign".

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Category:Categories.

--Reneman (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, since you have added building=transformer_tower in the building page, it would be really nice if you can make the extra effor and some content to the building=transformer_tower. Adding tags wihout any documentation is not a good practice. Thank you. Chrabros (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done --polderrunner (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify your edit

[2] Discussion here: Talk:Conditional_restrictions#.22Does_not_apply_to:_Turn_restrictions.22. Xxzme (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A little logical gap

Your last edit unfortunately produced a little logical gap:

  • substation=minor_distribution are fed by 20 kV lines.
  • A transmission substation may also feed a medium voltage distribution grid (typically having a voltage of less than 100 kV)
  • A distribution substation is a substation coupled to a medium voltage distribution grid mostly having a voltage between 25 kV and 90 kV (does not exist in Germany because 110 kV is used) and that typically feeds a lower voltage distribution network (e.g. 10 kV) of an area.

According to your last edit, there cannot be any distribution substation in Germany, because they are fed with 110 kV. All existing 110 kV distribution substations need to be mechanically upgraded to transmission substation in order to match this definition. Even worse, there cannot be any 138 kV distribution substation in the United States, because it does not match this definition.

As far as I understood, the appropriate tagging would be:

  • transmission: 220 kV -> 110 kV; 345 kV -> 138 kV
  • distribution: 110 kV -> 20 kV; 138 kV -> 25 kV
  • minor_distribution: 20 kV -> 1 kV; 25 kV -> 1 kV

I am not happy with your last edit. --FK270673 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then it is very possible that there are no substation=distribution in Germany. In at least The Netherlands and Denmark the 110-132 kV level is considered transmission (those grids are owned by the respective national TSO, not by the regional distribution companies). Not sure about the situation in Germany but 110 kV clearly appears to be for transmission to me. If there is only one voltage level between 110 kV and low voltage (400 V) then there is indeed not any room for distribution substations. By the way, the voltage levels are suggested voltages. If there are clear reasons to consider a substation to be distribution despite the voltage nothing prevents the mapper from mapping it as such.
I know very little about the US power system. However you seem to tell that there are indeed two medium voltage levels (25 kV and 1 kV) thus substations transforming between those levels should be distribution substations. The last level of transforming to 120 V (those infamous pole transformers all over the place) may then be considered to be either a minor_substation or a transformer. --opani (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, there is a clear distinction between distribution and transmission substations, as mentioned in official reports: (just one example)

  • T = transmission are 345 kV substations and some major 138 kV substations with three or more feeders.
  • D = distribution are 138 kV and 69 kV substations with usually one or two, sometimes three feeders. The difference between 69 and 138 kV substations is mainly based on costs: 69kV substations are old and cheap, 138kV substations are new and expensive.
  • T = transmission substations connect an old 69kV network with a new 138kV network. Upgrading the whole distribution network from 69kV to 138kV may take 30 years and billions of dollars, so it is done gradually.
  • minor_distribution transformers are mounted on poles. minor_distribution lines have a different voltage in each county, with a range between 4000 and 35,000 V.

In Japan, the power company of Hiroshima gradually upgrades her power lines from 66kV to 110kV in order to increase performance - a similar disparity between old and cheap vs. new and expensive.

In Austria, the last old 50kV distribution line was finally shut down in 2008 and replaced by a new 110kV distribution line. Now the whole distribution network relies on 110kV, while the transmission network relies on 220kV.

--FK270673 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So it seems that we can't find an easy definition valid all over the world. In some countries 110 kV is considered transmission while in other countries 138 kV is distribution. In the Netherlands and Denmark (my primary areas of mapping) there are distribution grids of 50 or 60 kV in most places. The second level distribution grid is typically 10 kV.
I'm not sure that mappers may be able to correctly attribute the substation tag if they have to be aware of country specific definitions of substation categories. A single voltage threshold of e.g. 100 kV is easy to understand. Anyway, it may not be that important. I'm not aware of any application using the substation tag so far (my own Maperitive ruleset mainly renders substation icons according to the first voltage in the voltage tag and only in a couple of situations consider the substation tag as backup). --opani (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

power=sub_station -> power=substation


You have added warning about mechanical edits back then in 2014:

I think this is the case where this is a proper case of simple 1:1 automated conversion, especially after 4 years, when substation tag took over and is 20x more popular, while sub_station is still declining. Do you think we can remove this warning now and proceed with conversion? --Kocio (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply (I'm not regularly watching the wiki). I still don't like automated edits since doing it manually provides the opportunity to review the substations such as verifying their status, adding missing voltage and operator tags and adding details within the substations. So I prefer to keep the warning. polderrunner (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Substations functions

Hi, you may be interested by this new proposal currently in RFC Proposed_features/Substation_functions Fanfouer (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Lanes-harnasch1.jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.


Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

PD? Why?

Why is in public domain? Are you author of this file? Have you taken this photo? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)