[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

[François Lacombe]

Here are a few questions about this scheme :

Le mar. 29 déc. 2020 à 14:37, Christian Pietzsch <
christian.pietzsch at piespace.de> a écrit :

>
>    - we could have a power=energy_storage tag that builds the foundation
>    for all storage devices and facilities
>
> How will such device should be tagged, then?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868

>
>    - we could have a energy_storage=facility (for whole facilities
>    dedicated solely to storing energy like Honrsdale Power Reserve) or
>    energy_storage=module for individual storage units (for example the
>    containers with the batteries at Hornsdale or within a power=plant that
>    also has storage)
>
> How will facilities with PV, batteries and hydrogen electrolyser be
addressed between power=plant and power=energy_storage?
Here is a 1 GW project in France with them three
https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-exclusif-248632/

>
>    - than have the different methods of storage. Not exactly sure how we
>    would name these tags
>       - Wikipedia has methods as the highest level
>       (electrochemical/thermal/....) We might not necessarily need these
>       - next level down comes type (which would be magnetic/capacitor for
>       electrical or flywheel/gravitational/compressed air for mechanical)
>       - and one level down would be sub types (like
>       lithium-ion/lead/liquid-salt/.... for batteries)
>
> Experience of power=generator with 3 levels of classification, including a
:type tag is not that good despite it comes from good and ambitious
intentions.
As those n-levels classifications are often logical trees, here
generator:type could imply most generator:source and generator:methods.

More recently in pumps proposal, a multi-level classification (out of
Wikipedia) was synthesised with a single OSM key
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms
You won't find velocity, positive_displacement, gravity... as OSM values
here but it's easy to retrieve them.

I suggest to do the same with storage, a single key for the whole
classification.


>
>    - storage capacity would be tagged as storage:capacity= xxx kWh/MWh
>
> Agreed

> The one issue I have is that you can easily tag the storage capacity for a
> combined generation and storage plant but you can't tag the method of
> storage. For Example if I have Kraftwerk Fenne (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434) which would be power=plant
> with individual power=storage modules for the battery storage (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434.
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434>
>
That's why power=energy_storage is not the best option

> For a data consumer to know how the power plant stores it's energy, they
> would have to find the tagged storage modules within the facility. Which
> also is a problem for mappers that might not know where the energy storage
> is located but know the power plant uses this or this kind of storage.
>
Need to know a particular kind of feature is located in a facility doesn't
force anyone to use the primary key to do so.
No need for power=* to state for such capability here.

i.e : "I know this public swimming pool got toilets but I don't know where"
isn't a valid reason to retag leisure=swimming_pool to amenity=toilets.
Same applies here.

All the best

François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201229/4ad1d9d8/attachment.htm>