[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

[Warin]

On 30/12/20 2:13 am, Christian Pietzsch wrote:
>
> looking at my original proposal I had some ideas of simplyfing it and 
> reducing tagging.
> things would be put under the subtag storage:type 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_storage#Tagging>
>

Again .. not 'type'   ... type mean what exactly?  storage method? 
storage device?

> So without the the pre-tag of plant:generator so it can be used on 
> either of these. categorization based on physical basis gets dropped 
> (so no more electrochemical/thermal/...) because the level below is 
> most likely known. sub_types of for example batteries then could be 
> tagged with battery=*
>
> Let me know if this makes things easier. Would also mean there wasn't 
> a need for power=storage as long as you consider storage as a 
> plant/generator.
>
> Check out the examples below to get an idea of what it would look like.
>
> 29. Dezember 2020 15:49, "Christian Pietzsch" 
> <christian.pietzsch at piespace.de 
> <mailto:christian.pietzsch at piespace.de>> schrieb:
>
>     * 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
>
>
>
>     I didn't include pumped hydro in this proposal on purpose. It's
>     already been well established and I
>     know how resistant people within the community are to change
>     established tags (see contact: wars).
>     I would have left this our for a secondary proposal.
>     But if you ask me it would be for the idea (not the original one I
>     wrote down in the proposal)
>     would be power=storage + storage=facility +
>     storage:source(?)=hydro + storage:type(?)=pumped_hydro
>     +storage:capacity= xxx MWH.
>     Individual generators would stay the same as they are.
>
>     * 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-e
>         clusif-248632/
>
>
>
>     as mentioned above power=storage would only be used for
>     facilities/modules solely dedicated to
>     storing and releasing energy. SO for a combined plant it would
>     still be power=plant. But here we
>     come back to the problem I mentioned before
>
>     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.
>
>         That's why power=energy_storage is not the best option
>
>
>
>     with the outline I gave here on talk (because there have been so
>     many people wanting a dedicated
>     power=storage), you could only add storage:capacity:hydrogen=* and
>     storage:capacity:electricity=*
>     to the PV power=plant and then tag the individual batteries and
>     electrolyser seperately.
>     With the ordignal proposal you could add
>     plant:storage:type=electrolyser;lithium-ion.
>
>     * 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.
>
>
>
>     I agree that we don't necessarily need them. But I think having a
>     higher level available when
>     details are unknown, could be helpful. For example I might know
>     that the facility uses batteries
>     but I can't find out whether these are lithium-ion or lead or so.
>     So I think as for generator and plant the tree should probably be
>     seen from the other side. If you
>     don't know the lowest level, you go one higher.
>
>     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.
>
>
>
>     I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I never intended
>     to retag a power=plant to a
>     power=storage because it has one battery. What I meant was that
>     from the perspective of a data
>     consumer it would be easiest if you have all the tags for the
>     facilities power generation as well
>     as its energy storage together. Which would also make sense
>     logically. power producing and storing
>     part together form the power=plant
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/ccc0c81a/attachment-0001.htm>