<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /></head><body><div data-html-editor-font-wrapper="true" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><p>looking at my original proposal I had some ideas of simplyfing it and reducing tagging.<br>things would be put under the subtag <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_storage#Tagging">storage:type</a><br>So without the the pre-tag of plant:generator so it can be used on either of these. categorization based on physical basis gets dropped (so no more electrochemical/thermal/...) because the level below is most likely known. sub_types of for example batteries then could be tagged with battery=*</p><p>Let me know if this makes things easier. Would also mean there wasn't a need for power=storage as long as you consider storage as a plant/generator.</p><p>Check out the examples below to get an idea of what it would look like.<br><br>29. Dezember 2020 15:49, "Christian Pietzsch" <<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:christian.pietzsch@piespace.de">christian.pietzsch@piespace.de</a>> schrieb:</p><blockquote>* we could have a power=energy_storage tag that builds the foundation for all storage devices and<br>facilities<blockquote>How will such device should be tagged, then?<br><br><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868</a></blockquote><br><br>I didn't include pumped hydro in this proposal on purpose. It's already been well established and I<br>know how resistant people within the community are to change established tags (see contact: wars).<br>I would have left this our for a secondary proposal.<br>But if you ask me it would be for the idea (not the original one I wrote down in the proposal)<br>would be power=storage + storage=facility + storage:source(?)=hydro + storage:type(?)=pumped_hydro<br>+storage:capacity= xxx MWH.<br>Individual generators would stay the same as they are.<br><br>* we could have a energy_storage=facility (for whole facilities dedicated solely to storing energy<br>like Honrsdale Power Reserve) or energy_storage=module for individual storage units (for example<br>the containers with the batteries at Hornsdale or within a power=plant that also has storage)<blockquote>How will facilities with PV, batteries and hydrogen electrolyser be addressed between power=plant<br>and power=energy_storage?<br><br>Here is a 1 GW project in France with them three<br><br><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e">https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e</a><br>clusif-248632/</blockquote><br><br>as mentioned above power=storage would only be used for facilities/modules solely dedicated to<br>storing and releasing energy. SO for a combined plant it would still be power=plant. But here we<br>come back to the problem I mentioned before<br><br>The one issue I have is that you can easily tag the storage capacity for a combined generation and<br>storage plant but you can't tag the method of storage. For Example if I have Kraftwerk Fenne<br>(<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434</a>) which would be power=plant with individual<br>power=storage modules for the battery storage (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434</a>.<blockquote>That's why power=energy_storage is not the best option</blockquote><br><br>with the outline I gave here on talk (because there have been so many people wanting a dedicated<br>power=storage), you could only add storage:capacity:hydrogen=* and storage:capacity:electricity=*<br>to the PV power=plant and then tag the individual batteries and electrolyser seperately.<br>With the ordignal proposal you could add plant:storage:type=electrolyser;lithium-ion.<br><br>* than have the different methods of storage. Not exactly sure how we would name these tags<br>* Wikipedia has methods as the highest level (electrochemical/thermal/....) We might not<br>necessarily need these<br>* next level down comes type (which would be magnetic/capacitor for electrical or<br>flywheel/gravitational/compressed air for mechanical)<br>* and one level down would be sub types (like lithium-ion/lead/liquid-salt/.... for batteries)<blockquote>Experience of power=generator with 3 levels of classification, including a :type tag is not that<br>good despite it comes from good and ambitious intentions.<br><br>As those n-levels classifications are often logical trees, here generator:type could imply most<br>generator:source and generator:methods.<br><br>More recently in pumps proposal, a multi-level classification (out of Wikipedia) was synthesised<br>with a single OSM key<br><br><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms</a><br><br>You won't find velocity, positive_displacement, gravity... as OSM values here but it's easy to<br>retrieve them.<br>I suggest to do the same with storage, a single key for the whole classification.</blockquote><br><br>I agree that we don't necessarily need them. But I think having a higher level available when<br>details are unknown, could be helpful. For example I might know that the facility uses batteries<br>but I can't find out whether these are lithium-ion or lead or so.<br>So I think as for generator and plant the tree should probably be seen from the other side. If you<br>don't know the lowest level, you go one higher.<br><br>For a data consumer to know how the power plant stores it's energy, they would have to find the<br>tagged storage modules within the facility. Which also is a problem for mappers that might not know<br>where the energy storage is located but know the power plant uses this or this kind of storage.<blockquote>Need to know a particular kind of feature is located in a facility doesn't force anyone to use the<br>primary key to do so.<br>No need for power=* to state for such capability here.<br><br>i.e : "I know this public swimming pool got toilets but I don't know where" isn't a valid reason to<br>retag leisure=swimming_pool to amenity=toilets.<br>Same applies here.</blockquote><br><br>I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I never intended to retag a power=plant to a<br>power=storage because it has one battery. What I meant was that from the perspective of a data<br>consumer it would be easiest if you have all the tags for the facilities power generation as well<br>as its energy storage together. Which would also make sense logically. power producing and storing<br>part together form the power=plant<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Tagging mailing list<br><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></blockquote></div></body></html>