Talk:Tag:power=connection

Distinguishing individual cables?

The text about cables=* says "On 3-phases systems it's possible to distinguish individual cables and use cables=1 on each connection." Is this commonly done? I thought that we almost always use a single line to represent a 3-phase system, since we only make one node for each power=tower even it it holds 3, 6, 9 or more cables? --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's not recommended, you can technically map every single conductor if you wish. You may find mono-pole towers that hold each a conductor of a 3-phases system, then it's possible to map every conductor with their individual supports like here here. If a connection occurs on those sections, then you'll be welcome to use cables=1. Fanfouer (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see how it makes sense if each conductor is attached to a different tower or pole and you are being very detailed. Maybe we can clarify that this is the only situation where you should use separate power=line / power=minor_line ways for each conductor, since if there is just one tower/pole for all 3 phases it would not make sense, because a power=tower is always a node. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Progress?

I came across this tag today after encountering just this feature in the wild. Any chance that we can get it accepted? It seems fairly uncontroversial to me, at least. Harahu (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Change this to de facto?

I don't see why we would need to go through another proposal for this. And it is very much needed to help validation. Gazer75 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem to validate this with de facto status and run for a dedicated proposal separately. I'll think about that shortly Fanfouer (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)