Proposal talk:Catenary mast details

Structure

Hello, first of all I support your proposal and it's a good opportunity to improve things about catenary masts. I have a few points to make about current practices regarding power supports tagging. We have great time to refine existing tagging and it would be useful for your proposal.
How do you feel about considering using structure=* for masts structure instead of catenary_mast:construction=* or tower:construction=*? The first is way more used and versatile than the two lasts. Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved: I'm fine using the existing tag structure. I updated the porposal. --reDoubleYou 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage of catenary_mast namespace

In my opinion, catenary_mast namespace proposed for most keys of the proposal is not always relevant and will prevent to reuse useful ontology on other topics despite relevant.
For instance catenary_mast:insulator=* intended for describing insulators' material is too specific as we already have power=insulator, among other comments about this particular key.
This proposal should reuse, and possibly complete, what is already existing instead of providing too specific keys with a namespace. Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I already cleaned the proposal a little from namespace and will continue later on. --reDoubleYou 15:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I cleaned the proposal from namespaces as much as possible now. (About catenary_mast:suspension and catenary_mast:midpoint_anchor we need more discussion - see other points.)

I'm struggeling with the tag for the insulators. power=insulator cannot be used at the catenary mast as the key power is already used for power=catenary_mast. Values for a key insulator aren't defined yet. material is used to describe the structure of the catenary mast. I agree that it isn't necessarry to tag the insulator at the catenary mast for the support-types head_span, portal, end/anchor, tensioning_only as we could propose to map head_spans and portals directly and place the insulators on them or on the over head contact line at anchors i. e. But I'd like to avoid to map single cantilevers. They contain often multiple insulators. So the information would be good to have on the of the catenary mast for the support-types cantilever and lateral I think. For that we need a new tag. Maybe we could introduce insulator=* with the material as value (usable for all insulators as well). What do you think? --reDoubleYou 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Attachments and lines management

line_attachment=* and line_management=* had previously been introduced to refine existing tagging for power towers.
From that perspective, catenary_mast:suspension=* confuses anchor and suspension. Suspension can't be suitable for end value (as example picture shows an anchor, not a suspension).
Thus I suggest to establish how existing keys could be suitable for particular case of catenary mast and propose required new values to do so if necessary, instead of creating a particular key for that here.

We do need further work to give more details about anchor and suspension and I be glad to contribute to that. Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I see choosing the tag catenary_mast:suspension confuses. Suspension is the wrong term as I understand now. The tag I'd like to propose doesn't mean how the over head contact line is attached to the pole but what type of construction is supported by the catenary mast that supports the over head contact line. So would you agree using instead support as key? Except for the value end I think the values fit. Instead of support=end maybe support=anchor would fit better? As reminder: For the moment this proposal aims to give catenary masts more details. It doesn't aim to say how the over head contact line is attached to the catenary mast. That for I could imagine a node on the railway-line with this information. But it would be useless as it is always line_attachment=suspension (except the case a over head contact line end at a catenary mast). On electric railways we have the situation in contrast to power towers that the over head contact line is mapped at another place as the catenary mast. So as I'm writing this I think that line_attachment doesn't belong to electric railways, especially catenary masts. --reDoubleYou 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I added line_management=* to the proposal at the section further tags (not new, but proposed to be used) --reDoubleYou 20:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Midpoints anchors

We also find such constructions for power lines. In my opinion, such should be mapped as a way along the supporting rope, connected to contact lines with power=insulator help, just like power=portal mapped as ways. It doesn't require to be a property of a node.
power=portal is already used for catenary supports on railways in France, for instance here here Fanfouer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

First of all to clearify that we are talking of the same I added a picture showing a scheme of the ropes that form the midpoint anchor. At the midpoint anchor the over head contact line cannot move along or lateral (but just a little vertical).

Scheme of midpoint anchor at an over head contact line

If I understand you right, you'd like to not map something like catenary_mast:midpoint_anchor=yes at the catenary mast but you'd like to map the blue ropes as way from the mast to the midpoint anchor. Am I understanding you right? If so, I'd be fine doing that. But I'd like to exclude it from this proposal and take it into another I'm preparing with more stuff refering to over head contact lines (friendly reminder: this proposal is about catenary masts). Within this way one could place a to map a power=insulator.