https://www.linkedin.com/posts/grupobrisa_grupobrisa-brisaautoestradas-a1coimbra-activity-7431785217519939584-frxL

Agora falta saber onde se encontram os basculamentos. De qualquer forma, se quiseres mudar já, não me parece má ideia, e mete-se os basculamentos num sítio qualquer, desde que entre os nós 12 e 13.

Fixed. Thank you.

Alterei nos casos que consegui detetar. Se encontrares mais algum caso desses, pedia o favor de aplicares esta alteração do frequency=50;0 e voltage=X;0. Talvez só acrescentaria disused=no;yes para ficar ainda mais claro, mas não vou agora alterar as linhas porque dá trabalho.

Um aparte: acho que o mais correto seria utilizar uma convenção semelhante a destination:lanes=* para voltage=* e disused=*, em que se utiliza o separador "|" em vez de ";" para separar os diferentes valores. Quando separados por "|", deduz-se que a ordem importa, e que os valores se referem às lanes/circuitos da esquerda para a direita, enquanto valores separados por ";" se consideram tipicamente como não-ordenados. Mas pronto, é só um aparte.

Era intencional, uma vez que esta linha tem dois circuitos, um deles operado a 130kV, e o outro não se encontra a ser operado. Daí voltage=130000; porque o 2.º circuito não tem voltagem. Mas se calhar seria mais adequado indicar voltage=130000;0, e frequency=50;0, que achas?

Thank you for your feedback. Fixed in changeset/178644768

Let me know what you think.

I do not agree with Spaghettti Monster's "fix" in changeset/178563424. Tho I don't like the original change by topolusitania of just disconnecting the bridge from the highway section over the embankment.

I'd recommend a better way to tag the situation on the ground, by marking the highway section between exits/nodes 12 and 13 with access=no in both motorway directions, and tagging the 10-meter section that was destroyed by the floods with destroyed:highway=motorway, or otherwise construction=highway + highway=motorway since the destroyed section is being subjected to construction works to stabilize the earthworks, and the highway will eventually be rebuilt as it was.

Esta ainda produz. A que foi encerrada foi a Central Termoelétrica do Carregado (a carvão). A que apareceu ao lado, e é nova, é a Central Termoelétrica do Ribatejo (a gás).

E-REDES, in pages 47-71 you'll find the list of all 60kV line sections, including branches: https://www.e-redes.pt/sites/eredes/files/2025-05/E-REDES_Artigo18_RARI2024_Caracterizacao_Redes_Distribuicao_MT_AT_a_31dez2024.pdf

REN, in pages 41-45 you'll find the list of all line sections between 150kV-400kV, including branches ("ramais"): https://mercado.ren.pt/PT/Electr/AcessoRedes/AcessoRNT/CaractRNT/BibRelAno/Caracteriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20da%20RNT%2031-12-2024.pdf

As I said previously, I understand the recommendation of not needing a line_section relation if the whole line section is a single way, in which case the way can be added to the circuit with role "section", and I don't need to create the line_section relation. I also understand that line_section relations were proposed as a convenience to make circuits simpler. However, I explicitly chose not to obey that recommendation (although I am following the proposed mapping by the letter), because network operators frequently mention line sections instead of circuits, so I decided that line_section could be not only a convenience to build circuits, but also a relevant type of object per se, because those are the terms in which network operators refer to their power lines.

Also, this does not inconvenience any renderers or data consumers, if those can handle line_sections with more than one way as members, they can also handle a single way as a member.

Hello! Thank you for your suggestions.

I read the new power=circuit and power=line_section specs in great detail before upgrading the existing relations in Portugal, and arrived at the conclusion that the mapping I have done is correct, albeit excessive as the power=line_section page mentions, since a simple power line doesn't require a line_section relation.

This was intentional on my end, for the simple reason that infrastructure reports published by the network operators always mention line sections, not circuits, so it would be useful to have all line sections reported by operators mapped as line_sections instead of some being line_sections and others having their refs straight in the ways and having those ways as direct members of circuits.

All of this is to say: I am aware this mapping does not obey all the recommendations in the power=circuit page, but this mapping fully complies with the spec, and I don't intend to change it. And the reason is that it is more convenient for me to cross-check against power grid operators' reports.

Infelizmente os edifícios no centro do Porto estão frequentemente desalinhados uns com os outros. Tenho usado as imagens Bing para alinhar os edifícios, uma vez que possuem a maior qualidade, e apresentam pouca distorção.

Revertido.

Olá! Eliminaste várias linhas elétricas. Gostaria de perceber porquê, caso contrário será necessário reverter a tua alteração.