Proposal talk:Remotely controlled devices

Industrial

The proposed value "industrial" seems strange. I am sure this is a classification type in some setting for "everything else / proprietary method", but for OSM I'd rather prefer a dedicated value for each of the possible sub-values there (like AS-Interface or 1wire) and not a "generic collector tag". --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and added more specific values behind "industrial".

But it's a difficult topic. The main question is "At which layer do I am mapping ?". Many of those industrial protocols are high level protocols and mappers can't know them just by looking at wires.

Giving the highest level protocol name may be more relevant than the physical connection (we can use dozen of things over Ethernet nowadays) but not the easiest information to get => Dilemma Fanfouer (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)