Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - 2nd RFC

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - 2nd RFC

François Lacombe

I'm pleased to announce that a 2nd RFC period has started for the power transmission refinement.

Due to last Friday reject for the first version of the proposal, the work should go on and take care of many feedback we've got during vote.
I apologize for the excessive length of this mail... some questions need explanations and then answers. Thank you to take time to read it.

Several points must be solved :
1. Voltage.
Voltage paragraph is certainly unclear. We try to introduce standard values when exact voltage is unknown but is this very useful ?
If we don't manage to find a consensus about this, I will remove the chapter before any new voting period.

2. Line/cables specifications
I've changed my opinion about power=cable and it will normally still be available in this new version of the proposal.
Nevertheless, values like minor_line should really be deprecated : it's only a voltage matter and we have voltage=* tag to deal with it.
People use to oppose residential lines to big overhead power lines but it's nonsense :
- There are not just "big overhead power lines" and "residential distribution" in power landscape. A wide range of features, designed by the voltage they are supposed to carry, exist and enhance the importance of "low voltage lines" with minor_line beside the rest in power=line don't represent reality at all.
- Everyone is free to hide whatever he wants behind the minor_line voltage threshold. Data consumers won't be aware of this and will have to gather heavy detailed information about local specifications to know which voltage is really in use.

3. Bundles and conductors
The new tags bundles=* and conductors=* were criticized as confusing keys... should we bring back the old wires=* and cables=* tags ?

4. Additional stuff like markers and junction boxes
Some voting opposition was about the introduction of line=marker and line=junction_box.
line=* doesn't seem to be the right key to use but I don't have better idea.
Should we add it directly to power ?
* power=marker
* power=junction_box

Please note the introduction of the new "underground pipes and tunnel" paragraph which is maybe a better place to deal with underground junction boxes.

Maybe you have any other suggestion for such a special kind of features ?

Other points have received a positive welcome.

Looking forward to hear about all that 4 points above, cheers.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu

Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - 2nd RFC

I read the page Classification_of_Powerlines
and for power line there are electric line, phone line, ecc....