[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
imagic.osm at gmail.com
Sat Apr 6 07:20:54 UTC 2013
Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities
(examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary
if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they
are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way.
P.S: Please change "Experimented users" into "Experienced users" in Simple
2013/4/6 François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>
> Today I've updated the proposal to setup an improvement about power plants
> global model.
> Thanks to Vinking81 suggestions concerning solar power, we found some room
> for modifications.
> According to that chart:
> source and output power of whole power plants are now specified by tags
> plant:source and plant:output.
> It helps to check consistency with tags generator:source and
> generator:output which are member of the power=plant + type=site relation.
> Those power plant values are mainly lists of values separated by ; as it's
> widely done in OSM.
> Secondly, it introduce distinguishing of intermediate and output
> Why such a complex thing?
> 1 - In some cases (like solar farms, geothermal power plants, combustion
> power plans) we'll need to output more than only one kind of power.
> plant:output=* would be a list of different powers in use outside the plant.
> 2 - To link generators to each other as for mapping several power
> conversion steps through several kind of generators.
> Output generators must be distinguished from intermediate generators since
> they give the total amount of output power. Intermediate generators don't
> produce power which can be used outside the power plant at all.
> No new tag to make that distinguishing: only output generators have member
> role=generator in power=plant relation.
> Output values was added to the generators types table and special roles
> table had been reorganized by plant values instead of generators values.
> Only generator method remains in that table. Any idea to replace it by a
> plant:* tag?
> I'm aware it's not the smartest way to make those specifications but it
> works well (and it's backward compatible with current model).
> If you have any suggestion about that, don't hesitate to answer that mail.
> For the two main power plants configuration (conventional and farm),
> simple tagging models are still available and don't care of those
> Mappers who are confident in advanced tagging models will be able to
> improve accuracy of information in OSM.
> *François Lacombe*
> francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging