|
The current line voltage where power=pole can be used is still below 50 kV (power=minor_line), but that do not reflect reality. Around my area, poles, with heights between 27.5 m and 32 m, are used on 115 kV lines that run beside major roads. I tagged theme as power=tower based on the voltage threshold, but, after placing a proposal to extend tagging of poles (add design, structure, type, and other pole properties, like presence of guy wires) and increase the line voltage threshold from 50 kV to 138 kV, considering them as the highest voltage of subtransmission grid lines that use poles, I am slowly retagging poles for 115 kV and 69 kV lines I mapped from power=tower to power=pole (save for multipolar structures, with or without cross-arms, and structures with cross-arms that are permanently attached or screwed on the side, that will remain as power=tower) while the proposal is still not approved. But, I saw the use of power=pole on high voltage lines, like 115 kV, before, and it seem that power line supports are mapped based on their structure, not the voltage of the line. Do poles used on high voltage lines (i.e. 50 kV) be tagged as power=pole or power=pole? |
|
See these examples of power poles. One of the examples is of a 132kV power pole. The wiki article for the tag power=tower indicates that the power=pole tag should be used for electricity or telephone cables carried on single wooden poles. The voltage of the line dictates the conductor separation. Whether the conductors are best supported on metal pylons (or transmission towers) or wooden poles is an engineering consideration based primarily on cost and the strength of materials used. Poles are generally less expensive to install but may not be able to support higher voltages due to strength and conductor separation requirements. Yet, there is still conflicting info on tagging power line supports. Power=pole is only used on power=minor_lines, so, my proposal, still not starting voting because of lack of comments, will raise the voltage threshold to 138 kV (can be raised up to 345 kV or 500 kV if agreed upon). But, I prefer to have power=pole set on lines up to 138 kV instead, considering that single wood poles used on "subtransmission" lines whose highest limit is 138 kV. So, single wood, concrete or steel poles (with or without cross-arms) on lines with voltage higher than 138 kV, will be power=tower. Power=tower can be used on lines below 50 kV, usually on multipolar structures with or without cross-arms, but may be used on ordinary steel structures on such lines.
(03 Jan '17, 04:15)
TagaSanPedroAko
3
The wiki article about map features advises mappers to map the physical features seen on the ground. So if it looks like a pole then tag it as a pole. However, multi-polar structures are not poles, rather they are a form of tower. Perhaps if the tagging system used power=pylon, rather than power=tower, things might be less confusing. Also, the voltage is a property of the electrical conductors, or lines, rather than the supporting pole or tower structures that keeps the transmission line separated from the ground and maintains spacing between adjacent conductors. Whether a pole or tower is used will depend on cost and other engineering considerations, rather than the line voltage alone. I fail to see why power=tower needs to be used above a specific voltage.
(03 Jan '17, 13:12)
Huttite
|
|
Yes, I am really confused and the rules make it difficult as the questions of "What voltage is the powerline", "how tall is it" and "what is it made of" is nigh on impossible to tell to the adhoc mapper who is keen to improve OSM. Perhaps both JOSM and ID should prevent adding poles on HV lines and vice versa but seriously, if it looks like a pole, why can't we call it what it looks like. The same goes for towers on a standard line where it crosses a wide expanse of water or valley where as the others are all poles. |
