<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/12/20 2:13 am, Christian Pietzsch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:16508993c4faa736723ae82c35902682@piespace.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">storage:type</a><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Again .. not 'type' ... type mean what exactly? storage
method? storage device? <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:16508993c4faa736723ae82c35902682@piespace.de">
<div data-html-editor-font-wrapper="true" style="font-family:
arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<p>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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>