[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

[Tom Chance]

On 6 September 2010 13:46, André Riedel <riedel.andre at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/9/6 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>:
> > Nobody needs the tag to be
> >
> "generator:method=fission-creating-steam-to-power-a-turbine-that-induces-an-electric-current",
> > or
> >
> "generator:method=gasifiying-the-waste-municipal-wood-which-is-then-burnt-at-a-high-temperature-to-avoid-tar-buildup-to-produce-steam-driving-an-electromagnetic-induction-method-turbine".
>
> But there is a difference between using a steam turbine, a sterling
> engine or a magnetohydrodynamic generator, but all these can be fired
> by coal or fission.
>
> Fission energy could be used by heating water to power a steam turbine
> or by using a radioisotope thermoelectric generator or a betavoltaics.
>
> Fission power plants could use 'clean' uranium 238 or (with a special
> license) a plutonium uranium mixture (MOX) or Thorium MOX.
>


All that is true.

It is also the case that some parks are surfaced with perennial ryegrass
whilst others make more use of fescue varieties. But it doesn't follow that
somebody proposing tags for parks should start out with such a level detail
before using leisure=park. We don't have
leisure=park-with-70-percent-perennial-rye-grass-and-30-percent-creeping-red-fescue,
do we?

I proposed the range of generation methods in the wiki, with suggestions and
contributions from other mappers, because the itch I want to scratch is:
"how environmentally sustainable is this power generator?" I was also
mindful of the sorts of information generally valued by people who actually
work in the energy and built environment industries, i.e. what they would
want to know when they asked "what sort of generator is this?"

The tagging schema, as proposed, allows us to answer those questions and
meet some other general needs proposed by other mappers. It does so without
requiring mappers to necessarily enter this level of detail -- they can
simply tag an object as power=generator and be done with it.

If you want to extend the proposal to reach a further level of detail - the
precise chain of processes used to turn the generator:source into the
generator:output - then by all means write out such a proposal.

If you can do so without requiring that mappers happy with
generator:method=gasification be forced to instead enter a more complicated
mixture of tags to describe those precise processes, then I wouldn't argue
against your proposal. It wouldn't interest me, but it also wouldn't get in
my way.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100906/5b2ea682/attachment.html>