Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

François Lacombe-2
Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.

All the best

François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:

> Hi all
>
> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>
> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.
>
> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.
>
> All the best
>
> François

... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?

Sergio



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Warin
On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:

> On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>>
>> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.
>>
>> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
>> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> François
>
> ... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?

Nuts on trees?

------------
Providing a way for something to be sensibly tagged is what this is about.
If enough people map it and then a render shows it then it is justified.
If few map it and no one renders it the it will wither on the line. (pun).

Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not something for OSM' as that is one persons view.





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-08 01:39, Warin wrote:
On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.

All the best

François

... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?

Nuts on trees?

------------
Providing a way for something to be sensibly tagged is what this is about.
If enough people map it and then a render shows it then it is justified.
If few map it and no one renders it the it will wither on the line. (pun).

Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not something for OSM' as that is one persons view.


... beside that "this one person" happens to have a name, Sergio, and feels fully entitled to express his opinion about "this not being something for OSM", as much as those who are using those tags which I'm convinced will be minimally and sparsely used.

Sergio


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Warin
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags

+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin [hidden email] wrote:
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek

Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical significance around.

Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG

Do you have something against nuts? I don't...

Sergio


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical significance around.

Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them,
I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't
find them fascinating.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Warin
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin [hidden email] wrote:
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek

Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical significance around.


Open Historical Map for historical stuff...

Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG

Do you have something against nuts? I don't...


I do if they come up done when they should not, or they strip.

If you want to tag nuts and bolts .. then put up a proposal.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

OSMDoudou
In reply to this post by Jarek Piórkowski
Specifying bolts May also be of interest for climbing: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Warin
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin [hidden email] wrote:
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek

Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical significance around.

Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG

Do you have something against nuts? I don't..


PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_the_coco_de_mer
A natural nut that reaches up to 0.5 metres diameter

And the Bunya nut .. up to 18 kg .. in season people are warned not to walk there ... 18 kg falling on your head is not good.
These nuts are edible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucaria_bidwillii

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

OSMDoudou
In reply to this post by Warin
Notice, one shouldn’t confuse “historical” (exists and is historic interest) with “out of date” (doesn't exist anymore and cannot be verified on the ground) and with “life cycle” (change of state or usage).

Definitions are mine and can be imperfect.

In fact, I want to allude to:




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by François Lacombe-2

"Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in each section

would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the support node. "

What is section in "line_attachment=suspension;pin;suspension|suspension"?

First one suspension;pin;suspension
Second one suspension

I would explicitly note "| separates sections" or "; separates sections"

Mar 8, 2019, 12:35 AM by [hidden email]:
Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.

All the best

François


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

François Lacombe-2
In reply to this post by Warin
Hi all

Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 01:40, Warin <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not something for OSM' as that is one persons view.

Since it's visible and verifiable there is no point to ask if it should be in OSM or not: yes, definetly, so does bolts and nuts.
Let users use tags or not is necessary but not enough to get "the best" tags in a way of consistency, comprhensiveness and relevancy.
We do have issues currently with different fields of knowledge defining their own tags based on same theoretical concepts. They do not share anything and the knowledge is finally lost since it's difficult to connect features with environment or other objects.

That's why proposals are also a unique time to discuss how we can merge and share concepts.

Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 08:47, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> a écrit :

What is section in "line_attachment=suspension;pin;suspension|suspension"?


First one suspension;pin;suspension
Second one suspension

I would explicitly note "| separates sections" or "; separates sections"

Yes first and second.
i've updated the document with your suggestion, thanks

All the best

François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Michael Reichert-3
In reply to this post by François Lacombe-2
Hi François,

Am 08/03/2019 um 00.35 schrieb François Lacombe:

> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments
> received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>
> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored
> or held with suspension clamps over heads.
>
> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a
> more useful tagging.
You propose to use semicolons to separate the values if the cables at a
mast have a different suspension:

line_attachment=suspension_clamp;pin;suspension_clamp

We have a similar issue when tagging different speed limits on road
lanes and use a | to separate lanes (minspeed:lanes=90|90|40).

Unfortunately, the cables of a power line can be located on multiple
levels. Therefore, you propose to use semicolons to separate cables at
the same level and vertical bars to separate levels. A semicolon has a
slightly different meaning in OSM.

I would like to see line_attachment=* only for masts where all cables
are mounted equally and propose to use line_attachment:cables=* if one
value does not fit all cables.

In order to circumvent the semicolon issue, I propose to introduce round
braces for all cables of one level.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Pole_multi_attachement.png
would be tagged like this:
line_attachment:cables=(suspension_clamp|pin|suspension_clamp)|(suspension_clamp)
This avoids using adding variable parts into keys (line_attachment:1=*,
…) which I myself could not call "good tag design".

Best regards

Michael aka Nakaner


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

François Lacombe-2
Hi Nakaner and thank you for your contribution

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 09:41, Michael Reichert <[hidden email]> a écrit :
In order to circumvent the semicolon issue, I propose to introduce round
braces for all cables of one level.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Pole_multi_attachement.png
would be tagged like this:
line_attachment:cables=(suspension_clamp|pin|suspension_clamp)|(suspension_clamp)
This avoids using adding variable parts into keys (line_attachment:1=*,
…) which I myself could not call "good tag design".

I see no big issues regarding this and would certainly update the proposal

Before making such change how do others feel about that?

All the best

François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by François Lacombe-2

On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more useful tagging.

All the best

François


I already expressed my dissent about using OSM for mapping/tagging this kind of things on the ground of both A) this not being matter for a Geografical Information System, and B) the technical limitation of OSM architecture for storing such information, I therefore will not insist on this point any more.

====

I've read your proposal and IMO it contains so many mistakes to make it unfit to be taken into consideration even as a starting point:


A) Scope of the proposal.

It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "Consistently defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or tower", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you state that "This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities networks". Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different application fields later on?

As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the overhead line of an electric railway (and I have the strong feeling tha "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact lines), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.



B) Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.

The proposal is named "Line clamps", but then the tagging is defined as "line_attachment". This is confusing.


C) Are we really talking about "Clamps"?

A "clamp" is a device or a tool used to fix two otherwise relatively moving parts to each other by virtue of friction and compression (which augment friction).

In a power line a clamp is just the device used to fit the conductor to the insulator. The definition given by  IEC 466-11-09 and 466-11-10, that you are referring to, are clear: "a fitting which attaches a conductor to a suspension insulator set" and "a clamp which attaches a conductor to a tension insulator set or to a support, and designed to withstand the conductor tension". In the IEC documentation both are tagged to be in the "Conductor fittings" of the "Overhead lines" area of the IEC.


IEC 383-2 (Insulators for overhead lines with a nominal voltage above 1000V) gives definitions:

  • Insulator string: One or more string connected insulators units and intended to give flexible support to overhead line conductors and stressed mainly in tension.
  • Insulator set: An assembly of one or more insulator strings suitably connected together, complete with fixing and protective devices as required in service.
  • Suspension insulator set: An insulator set complete with fittings to carry a line conductor or conductors at its lower end.
  • Tension insulator set: An insulator set complete with fittings to secure a line conductor or conductors in tension.

The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".

The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).

So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (or insulator sets) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the same tag two very different kind of objects...

Are you taking "a clamp" as "the whole thing suspending conductors from the tower/pole" (of which the insulator is just a component)? That would be a mistake: that's an "insulator set", not a clamp. And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts when it comes to it?


D) Inaccurate wording. Some examples:

  • You state that "anchor_clamp" is "built stronger than suspension towers". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
  • "A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from their support" Isn't that the meaning of the life of every insulator?
  • ...


E) Logical mishaps

In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of conductors (3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right" watching the image), you state that "Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the support node". I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking, but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite side? (and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a different meaning in OSM tagging)


... I have to admit that at this point I stopped reading.


Sergio




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

François Lacombe-2
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert-3
Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> a écrit :
A) Scope of the proposal.

It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "Consistently defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or tower", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you state that "This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities networks". Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different application fields later on?

As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the overhead line of an electric railway (and I have the strong feeling tha "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact lines), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.

Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by further proposals.
It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.

Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an anchorage is still an anchorage.
Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on

B) Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.

Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.
 

C) Are we really talking about "Clamps"?

The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and so on.
The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, anchorage and shackles.

The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).

Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from suspension and anchors/tensions.

So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (or insulator sets) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the same tag two very different kind of objects...

We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare power conductors.

And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts when it comes to it?

Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current proposal.

D) Inaccurate wording. Some examples:

  • You state that "anchor_clamp" is "built stronger than suspension towers". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
You're confused in your own reading.
First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built stronger than a suspension one.
Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.
  • "A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from their support" Isn't that the meaning of the life of every insulator?
... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention.

E) Logical mishaps

In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of conductors (3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right" watching the image), you state that "Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the support node". I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking, but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite side? (and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a different meaning in OSM tagging)

Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten.

Regards,
François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi

François,

Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (some still needs some polishing I guess), but anyway (and putting aside my reluctance to map such things) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this proposal, at its very essence.

I still don't understand what are the objects that one is expected to map with this tag.

Taking as an example the first tower you depict for "line_attachment=suspension" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg) what are they? The tower (BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?) The "branch" (sorry, I'm missing the correct word...) of the tower/pylon to which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?

Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow pointing to the object of this tag?

TIA,

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote:
Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> a écrit :
A) Scope of the proposal.

It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "Consistently defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or tower", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you state that "This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities networks". Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different application fields later on?

As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the overhead line of an electric railway (and I have the strong feeling tha "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact lines), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.

Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by further proposals.
It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.

Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an anchorage is still an anchorage.
Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on

B) Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.

Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.
 

C) Are we really talking about "Clamps"?

The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and so on.
The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, anchorage and shackles.

The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).

Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from suspension and anchors/tensions.

So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (or insulator sets) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the same tag two very different kind of objects...

We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare power conductors.

And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts when it comes to it?

Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current proposal.

D) Inaccurate wording. Some examples:

  • You state that "anchor_clamp" is "built stronger than suspension towers". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
You're confused in your own reading.
First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built stronger than a suspension one.
Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.
  • "A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from their support" Isn't that the meaning of the life of every insulator?
... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention.

E) Logical mishaps

In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of conductors (3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right" watching the image), you state that "Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the support node". I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking, but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite side? (and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a different meaning in OSM tagging)

Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten.

Regards,
François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Sergio Manzi

BTW, what I incorrectly (I knew it was wrong!) named a "branch" of the tower is correctly named a "crossarm".

See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=466-08-12

Cheers!

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 23:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:

François,

Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (some still needs some polishing I guess), but anyway (and putting aside my reluctance to map such things) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this proposal, at its very essence.

I still don't understand what are the objects that one is expected to map with this tag.

Taking as an example the first tower you depict for "line_attachment=suspension" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg) what are they? The tower (BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?) The "branch" (sorry, I'm missing the correct word...) of the tower/pylon to which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?

Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow pointing to the object of this tag?

TIA,

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote:
Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> a écrit :
A) Scope of the proposal.

It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "Consistently defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or tower", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you state that "This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities networks". Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different application fields later on?

As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the overhead line of an electric railway (and I have the strong feeling tha "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact lines), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.

Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by further proposals.
It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.

Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an anchorage is still an anchorage.
Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on

B) Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.

Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.
 

C) Are we really talking about "Clamps"?

The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and so on.
The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, anchorage and shackles.

The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).

Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from suspension and anchors/tensions.

So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (or insulator sets) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the same tag two very different kind of objects...

We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare power conductors.

And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts when it comes to it?

Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current proposal.

D) Inaccurate wording. Some examples:

  • You state that "anchor_clamp" is "built stronger than suspension towers". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
You're confused in your own reading.
First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built stronger than a suspension one.
Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.
  • "A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from their support" Isn't that the meaning of the life of every insulator?
... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention.

E) Logical mishaps

In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of conductors (3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right" watching the image), you state that "Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the support node". I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking, but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite side? (and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a different meaning in OSM tagging)

Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten.

Regards,
François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

François Lacombe-2
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
Hi Sergio,

The proposal aims to map the way lines are bound to their supports.
In my mind, attachement = {Insulator set ; clamps ; accessories to secure the insulators on crossarms} for a bare power conductor.
Further keys can give details about each item in this set (but out of the current proposal).
For insulated cables you don't have insulators but the attachment methods are the same.

Here are illustrations :

Keep in mind that currently, it is possible to give the same information with tower:type=suspension.
As explained in the rationale, :type suffix is meaningless and gather too much possibilities to be usable.

Hope it's clearer

François

Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 23:04, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> a écrit :

François,

Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (some still needs some polishing I guess), but anyway (and putting aside my reluctance to map such things) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this proposal, at its very essence.

I still don't understand what are the objects that one is expected to map with this tag.

Taking as an example the first tower you depict for "line_attachment=suspension" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg) what are they? The tower (BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?) The "branch" (sorry, I'm missing the correct word...) of the tower/pylon to which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?

Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow pointing to the object of this tag?

TIA,

Sergio


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12