[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Mon Apr 8 13:02:06 UTC 2013
I finally agree with you.
I've began to update the proposal to remove relations in all cases except
when power plant doesn't have any physical permimeter.
We must keep role=generator for all generators (no need to distinguish them
there) in such relation since other features may be added too.
Concerning output/intermediate generators, I've introduced
generator:plant=output or generator:plant=intermediate to follow your
I expect finishing editing later this evening.
Le lundi 8 avril 2013, Martin Vonwald (imagic) <imagic.osm at gmail.com> a
> Am 08.04.2013 um 00:03 schrieb François Lacombe <
francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>:
> Hi again :)
> 2013/4/7 Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com>
>> Actually how could that happen?
> I don't have example, I was only guessing.
> Assuming 2 different power plants with output generators in each (and
links for power exchanges between both) would help us to solve that kind of
> => All right, my objection was stupid!
> Lets call it discussion, then it's not stupid anymore ;-)
>> I was about to suggest the same as Martin Koppenhöfer: additional tag on
the generator itself. Putting the generators of a plant into categories
(category A: output, category B: intermediate) by using a relation sounds
to me like this:  .
> I'll update proposal with following generator tag values:
generator=output or generator=intermediate (generator=* key doesn't exist).
> I like readable tags. When I read generator=output I have no clue about
its meaning. Every generator has output. So I definitively would add the
word plant there anywhere.
> Thus all generators of a power plant would be added to an hypothetic
power=plant relation with role=generator.
> This will be convenient to make the distinguishing on generator's tags
and only there.
> What could be the role of a generator if not generator? You wrote "all
generators ... with role=generator" - so the role does not have any
meaning. Then drop it.
> Also: if I simply add all the perimeters of a multi-site plant to the
relation, I don't need anything else in the relation. It would also be more
robust. Think of Joe Mapper who adds a newly built substation within the
perimeter of the plant. A relation was created earlier by a different
mapper. Joe doesn't know/care about the relation so he only adds the
substation. If the relation only contains the perimeters it is still
complete and the new substation is now part of the plant. If the relation
has to carry all of the features it is now broken.
> And furthermore: how can we find such broken relations?
> Of course if there is no clear perimeter (e.g. wind parks) the features
themselves have to be added.
>> Same goes for the substations by the way.
> It's different for substations.
> No categorization for them.
> My point was more like: if we have the perimeters we don't need this
information about the substations. But see below!
> Nevertheless they could easily be placed off the perimeter of a single
site power plant. How to make links in that particular case?
> Is it still part of the plant?
> In France for instance, substations and power grid are operated by RTE
and power plants by different companies.
> So they are two different features. A plant and a substation.
> Have a look to Tricastin nuclear power plant (biggest one I mean) :
> Power plant perimeter is between Rhone river and publicly accessed road
D459 with 4 reactor buildings. Substation is behind a private uranium
enrichment plant (big white buildings) which is not part of the power plant
so we can't put a whole closed way around that stuff.
> Does it really belong to the plant? Or is the "output" of the plant
transferred to the substation outside of the plant, where it is further
transformed? If you ask the operator of Tricastin if this is "their"
substation, what would be their answer? And what would be the answer of RWE?
> I don't see anything else than a relation to bring substation and power
> If they don't belong together they shouldn't be brought together ;-)
> You may say it's not a single site power plant.
> => Many situation like above would be encountered so we won't actually
have so many single site power plant.
> => Only the substation is off the power plant site. Do we have to link
substation and power plants this way?
> See above. Two different operators might be a good clue that they don't
belong to each other.
> Best regard,
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging