[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

François Lacombe francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Tue Apr 9 15:22:43 UTC 2013

No LM_1, nothing else than a power=generator could ever produce the right
sort of power (accordingly to what was defined at the plant scale with
plant:output=*) and be considered as this.

In my mind, define a role in a relation is mandatory but you say it's
definitely not right.
I agree to say generator / substation and other roles are not relevant and
maybe redundant but they formalize association between features and power
plant, which features' tags (or plants' tags) won't do ever since they're
attached to objects, not to the link between objects.

To make proposal lighter I would consent to remove generator, substation
roles and most of the specific roles from non-enclosed power plants
relations (perimeter has already left the proposal as you maybe noticed).
But that will allow mappers to use any values they want to use, not
convince them into letting the "role" field blank.

Any objections?


2013/4/9 LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com>

> Could there not be something else than a generator=* in a role of a
> generator?
> LM_1
> 2013/4/9 Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com>
>> Hi again :-)
>> 2013/4/9 François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>
>>> This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify
>>>> that a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a
>>>> generator is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A valve a
>>>> valve? A weir a weir? And so on.
>>> This is just because a role must be specified.
>> Why do I have to specify a role?
>>> When all features must be member of power=plant relation (because of
>>> lack of perimeter), what role can I associate to a generator except...
>>> generator?
>> None at all. Because if a generator is a member of a plant, its role is
>> generator. So no need to specify it. Even more: if you force roles to be
>> specified, someone comes along and specifies a generator as dam. This is of
>> course can be very easily and automatically detected as all generators must
>> be generators. But wait! If it can be automatically detected, why should it
>> be specified?
>> Imagine a basket ("relation") full of fruits ("members"). Everyone knows
>> the fruits and their names("tags"). Now someone puts notes ("roles") on the
>> fruits. On all apples now is a note saying "apple", on all pears it says
>> "pear", and so on. Would you think of those notes as helpful in any way?
>> You are a professional fruit merchant ("mapper"). Now your government ("the
>> one which writes the proposal" ;-) ) decides that in order to sell your
>> fruits you have to put one of those notes on each of them. The neighbours
>> boy comes along and switches all the notes. What do you think of the notes?
>> Are they worth the effort or would you consider changing your job (to
>> "google map maker")?
>> (Obviously I like illustrative comparisons)
>> Best regards!
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130409/3f8cbd32/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list