Additional answer (power=terminal) for PowerPolesMaterial-Quest about streetcomplete HOT 11 CLOSED

Some data collected from this overpass query how common this is:

How common this kind of tagging is varies greatly by country. Even in Germany, the number of poles that are connected to a building is quite small (in spam territory, I'd say). This makes me think that adding an option in the "Uh..." submenu makes more sense than adding a option for every pole (or is it possible to add this option only for poles that are connected to a building or are not connected to any other ways?). Maybe something like "Not a pole, this line ends in a building"?

from streetcomplete.

(not mnalis, but similar profile picture)

I agree that the numbers are fairly low for many countries – except Germany. I think, however, that it makes sense to add a "other answers" option:

• The numbers only capture the cases where there is a building mapped. Since power lines are mainly mapped from aerial imagery, it can be difficult to identify transformer towers correctly as buildings. Instead, one might just add a power=pole, despite actually being a power=terminal connected to a transformer tower (or similar).
• Not sure "fixing" this with JOSM would be a great idea, maybe there are cases where a pole connected to a building could be legit? Surveying seems helpful here.
• Typically, the "fake" poles would be where power lines end, typically close to other buildings and thus more likely to SC mappers to encounter, rather than a pole somewhere on a field.

Is 0.1 to 0.5% likelihood an unusual range for "other answers" options? Are there any particular downsides to adding such option?

from streetcomplete.

Good idea. Although, that other answer should probably appear only if the node tagged power=pole is part a polygon tagged with building=* (or power=*). (which would increase the quest complexity - but if the proposer proposes to write it themselves, it would be seem good to me!)

Though in some cases building may be not mapped? I guess it should be available also then, and if it is hidden in extra answers anyway...

(assuming it would be added)

from streetcomplete.

Ummm, there are #5657 (comment) in just Germany alone?

Oh, I misread. Well, then, makes sense.

from streetcomplete.

Yes, as an other answer, because the answer is a bit orthogonal to the question: "What material is this power pole?" - "It is actually not a power pole but the line is attached to a building here.". (The other-answer option's text must be much more succinct, of course, but you get the idea.)

Regarding leaving a note because a building is missing: I don't think this is necessary or it should be encouraged to leave notes when buildings are missing. These will be mapped from aerial imagery by people who like to map that and if the detail of the aerial imagery allows it. A note is not going to help.

from streetcomplete.

A more common tagging mistake (in my experience) is that some poles are actually lattice towers that should have been tagged with power=tower. They typically occur where a minor power line splits or changes direction (example here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/845380419). It's hard to see on imagery that these are different. So far I answered the quest with "steel" and then changed these to power=tower when home again (if I remembered) but it would be nice if I could change them within SC.

from streetcomplete.

Some data collected from this overpass query how common this is:
Country power=poles Poles that are part of a building Percentage (truncated)
France 1155264 210 0.01
Croatia 6738 2 0.02
Italy 188268 256 0.13
Austria 261189 307 0.11
Germany 717486 4176 0.58
Sweden 61492 16 0.02

How common this kind of tagging is varies greatly by country. Even in Germany, the number of poles that are connected to a building is quite small (in spam territory, I'd say). This makes me think that adding an option in the "Uh..." submenu makes more sense than adding a option for every pole (or is it possible to add this option only for poles that are connected to a building or are not connected to any other ways?). Maybe something like "Not a pole, this line ends in a building"?

Thank you for the overpass-query, i had no idea how to write such query.
I think adding the option only for suspicious nodes would be too complicated for me to implement and not worth the effort.
Maybe i could manage to write a completely new quest (Is this really a power pole or is it a terminal?) with the filter i used in the IsAmenityIndoor-Quest, but i'm, not sure if a new quest that affects such few nodes would be accepted.

To the spam point: I think it might reduce "spam", because there are fewer notes that need to be handled manually.

from streetcomplete.

Looking at the numbers, thank you @mnalis , I would actually say it is not worth the effort to even have an other answer. The 250 or-so occurrences of such tagging could just as well be fixed by a motivated mapper using JOSM.

from streetcomplete.

Are there any particular downsides to adding such option?

Needs to be implemented, increased maintenance effort for future, each new text needs to be translated into every single language. From what I see at https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#translating-the-app currently there are attempts to translate app into 70 languages.

Is 0.1 to 0.5% likelihood an unusual range for "other answers" options?

I would say it is on the low end? But getting into range (but it is a guess, I have not made proper measurement)

from streetcomplete.

(real mnalis here 😄)

The 250 or-so occurrences of such tagging could just as well be fixed by a motivated mapper using JOSM.

Ummm, there are 4176 of those in just Germany alone?

Therefore, I would like to suggest adding another option with a picture that sets power=terminal.

Good idea. Although, that other answer should probably appear only if the node tagged power=pole is part a polygon tagged with building=* (or power=*). (which would increase the quest complexity - but if the proposer proposes to write it themselves, it would be seem good to me!)

from streetcomplete.

Have I now understood correctly that it should be implemented as 'other answer'? And regarding the aspect mentioned by matkoniecz that some transformer towers are just not mapped: Wouldn't it be sensible in such cases to create a note about the missing building? Maybe, an additional dialog 'Is this building already shown on the map?' ?

from streetcomplete.