[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 20:20:21 UTC 2020

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually
> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, but
> the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a
> building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on the
> roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
> *electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.
> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it easier
> to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to a
> generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local grids
> (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and national
> grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national,
> local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?
> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to
> *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for
> tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources and
> would then be more consistent with tagging such as
> *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup
> diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then
> not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although
> this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
> probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*
Here is the link to that suggestion I made

The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential
issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to
implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the
community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about
making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to
have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal
process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can
migrate to the OSM community accepted schema.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201104/7a6a82bb/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list