[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Lukas Richert lrichert at posteo.de
Tue Nov 3 21:07:18 UTC 2020

I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow 
for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.

The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none 
and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively 
straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with people adding 
major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially 
power_supply is frustrating. )

What do others think about the tag options


[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
instead of


Cheers Lukas

On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de 
> <mailto: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 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values and 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201103/1dac1a48/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list