<div dir="auto">I like the new options.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In Australia it would be beneficial to note which addresses don't have power, rather than those that do so this would work well.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For remote communities in Australia, the off grid option would be good.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many homes also have solar panels connected and this would be great for firefighters as solar panels provide an electrocution risk in a house for situation.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rob</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, 8:10 am Lukas Richert, <<a href="mailto:lrichert@posteo.de">lrichert@posteo.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I also think the <b>electricity:grid=yes/no/backup</b> and <b>electricity:generator=yes/no/backup</b>
tags are clearer and would allow for off-grid buildings to be
tagged more distinctly. <br>
</p>
<p>The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience
with automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing
electricity=none and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes
would be relatively straightforward? (This is unfortunately the
problem with people adding major undiscussed/proposed tags to the
main wiki. Especially power_supply is frustrating. )</p>
<p>What do others think about the tag options</p>
<blockquote>electricity:grid=yes/no/backup<br>
electricity:generator=yes/no/backup<br>
electricity=yes <br>
electricity=no<br>
</blockquote>
<p>[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown]
instead of <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>electricity=grid<br>
electricity=generator<br>
electricity=yes<br>
electricity=no</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cheers Lukas<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13,
Lukas Richert <<a href="mailto:lrichert@posteo.de" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lrichert@posteo.de</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>While the original proposal did specify that generators
are usually diesel, broadening the definition would only
lead to a loss of detail, but the tagging would still be
correct. I'm hesitant to use <b>offgrid</b> as a
building that has, for example, a grid connection with
solar panels on the roof would then be tagged as <b>electricity=grid;offgrid</b>
instead of <b>electricity=grid;generator</b>. The
former is illogical. <br>
</p>
<p>However, I don't have any experience in developing
countries: is it easier to verify if something is
off-grid compared to if it is connected to a generator?
And, would it be necessary to differentiate between
local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations,
transfromers, etc.) and national grids? Perhaps then a
network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national,
local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are
mapped?<br>
</p>
<p>A further suggestion was to change the tagging to<b> </b><b>electricity:grid=yes/no/backup</b>
and/or <b>electricity:generator=yes/no/backup</b>. This
might be less ambiguous for tagging amenities or
buildings that get electricity from both sources and
would then be more consistent with tagging such as <b>electricity:generator:origin=diesel</b>
when, e.g. a building has a backup diesel generator but
is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then
not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites
Mapping Project, although this already has the
inconsistent <b>electricity=none</b> tag which should
probably be changed directly to <b>electricity=no.</b> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Here is the link to that suggestion I made <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values</a> and <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The whole point of the proposal process is to identify
these potential issues, resolve them, and get community
agreement. If the goal is just to implement someone else's
standard then we can't use the wisdom of the community here
to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about
making this match what another project is using, instead we
should aim to have the best tags and documentation as the
outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different,
other projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM
community accepted schema.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>