[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
imagic.osm at gmail.com
Sat Apr 6 17:19:37 UTC 2013
2013/4/6 François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>
> 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.
> I agree with such a point of view.
> Nevertheless relations allow us to link generators to the power plant
> where they're located in.
> They enable automatic rate computation by adding all individual
> generators' power for instance.
> Even if power plant is a single site infrastructure, it may be divided
> between several buildings and no link would easily be made between
> generators and power plant output.
That's exactly my point: if one suggest to use a relation even for a single
site infrastructure, he suggest to put the workload from the consumer to
the mapper and that's the wrong way. We have a spatial database: if there's
a closed way surrounding all the feature you simply don't need a relation
to get all the features within, all you need is the closed way. Yes, it is
more complicated for the consumer. Yes, it needs more processing. But it is
(much) more robust, (much) better visible and easier for the mapper. So do
not suggest to put features of a single site into a relation (as you do in
some examples). OSM is getting complicated enough. Scaring off new mappers
with unnecessary complex schemes doesn't help OSM, it hurts it.
Sorry for those clear words, but we have to keep the bar low for mappers.
The ones who process our data usually have far more experience than the
average mapper. Put the burden on that end that can handle it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging