Description
Currently, powerline/minor_lines are drawn with ways;; Osmose assumes that these are aerial unisolated cables, and so their nodes should be only for locations on poles/towers and possibly on buildings (may be insulated if they are along walls or near roofs, but not always as the suspension may be attached horizontally to the wall, or power lines may even be suspended by non-electric cables connected on either side to non-electric poles/towers/buildings.
Why Osmose does want us to add both "power=pole" and "power=tower" on many untagged nodes along these cables with location=underground/underwater/overground ?
Please
- detect ways with "power=line" (usually connected by "power=tower" nodes) (or minor_line for the local distribution network up to "voltage=20000") ways that have "location=underground/underwater/overground/..."
- exclude their geometric nodes from requiring any "power=pole/tower" (TOO MANY WRONG suggestions)
- instead propose changing ways to use "power=cable" (MUCH LESS suggestions)
- and add at least "voltage=*" where it is missing (allowing useful distinction lost between the distribution network at or below 20kV, and the main transport grid above).
- For the main electric grid for the long distance transport (> 20kV) or for collecting generators, the number of cables should be there (notably if it is aerial and uninsulated and held by power=tower), as well as the operator
- Some small generators (notably solar or wind installations "at home") are not necessarily connected to the main transport grid, but use specific reversible equipment on the local distribution network
Example in Niort, Deux-Sèvres, France:
There are also various other locations found across regions. In some cases they were caused by unexpected intersections of geometry with other objects (often highways, waterways or natural and landuse areas only) along electric lines whose ways that were already properly mapped with their poles:
- it should be possible to detect those unexpected node that are between two other poles/towers along a line that is almost straight: these are probably intersection without consequence, but tagging them with poles/towers would be worse than doing nothing (even if these nodes may be disconnected, but this is not visible and difficult to do for many users as it requires modifying again other objects and not breaking their parent relations). An untagged node in this case is not a serious issue, but the suggestion of adding a pole/tower should be completely avoided (just look along the way of the power line if the next few nodes exist at a reasonnable distance, and if the power line at that node is almost straight (less than about 2 degrees of deviation), and so remove that suggestion (instead add a level=3 gravity warning only that this extra untagged node should be disconnected from other non-electric ways by advanced contributors)
- in some cases, the electric line may connect to a building or on a bridge or tunnel or some other infrastructure which have geometries defined by lines or areas: this is however not the proper location of a "pole" or "tower" but may signal a case where the power line may change between power=line/minor_line and power=cable (e.g. on a small building for a transformer, or with no transformer at all, as the line will just change its insulation type, e.g. when passing through a tunnel or under water through a maritime bay or a lake or through a coastal channel to a coastal island with: some residences/farms, or with a lighthouse, or with some radio equipement like a radar, a beacon, or a mobile phone antenna covering an harbour or a beach, or with a meteorologic station or observatory, or remote surveillance equipments around protected/polluted/dangerous areas: they need power and local production by solar/wind generators is not always possible or sufficient or stable enough or is forbidden)