[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
robert at rtbk.com.au
Tue Nov 3 21:37:55 UTC 2020
I like the new options.
In Australia it would be beneficial to note which addresses don't have
power, rather than those that do so this would work well.
For remote communities in Australia, the off grid option would be good.
Many homes also have solar panels connected and this would be great for
firefighters as solar panels provide an electrocution risk in a house for
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, 8:10 am Lukas Richert, <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:
> 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
> 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> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging