[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

[André Riedel]

2010/9/8 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>:
>> But all these values of 'generator:method' works only very well for
>> these combustion or fission generators. :-( All water based generators
>> include their method in its 'generator:source'.
>
> They aren't included in the generator:source. I have considered them to be
> "implied" for my purposes only because I have no knowledge or interest in
> the different methods used by wave, tidal, hydroelectric and osmotic
> generators. If you do, feel free to add those to the method list. The same
> goes for differences in wind and geothermal technologies.
>
> Unlike the current set of tags, this proposal doesn't stop you adding
> further detail. It clearly separates the categories of source, output and
> method, and would allow further definition of each of those if you really
> wanted. For example you could add the different kinds of biomass source, and
> the different kinds of gasification.

But your proposal is not a small change of the whole power=generator
system. A change of tagging for example a tidal power plant shoud not
be done every month. So it would be great if you can stop your
fighting to push the proposal through the overall process within three
weeks. As you already mentioned you do not have the knowledge for all
power plant types, me too, but I think OSM have the man power to solve
this issue but need some time.

In my opinion everybody voting yes, wants an easy to use tagging
scheme with the ability for future extension. (Only) On the first view
the current proposal looks applicable.

Ciao André