[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Lukas Richert lrichert at posteo.de
Wed Nov 11 18:33:36 UTC 2020


The tagging from the original proposal has now changed significantly in 
the past weeks and, I think, has gotten more robust and modular. It has, 
however, then lost backwards compatability although the tag was not used 
often and it should be straightforward to migrate the tags to the new 
scheme. I'd be happy to hear more feedback on the proposal as it 
currently stands. Otherwise, if discussion concludes this week I would 
then move on to voting next week.

Cheers, Lukas

On 05/11/2020 15:32, Lukas Richert wrote:
>
> I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace 
> based tagging of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and 
> clearer to tag backup generators and grid-connected houses with solar 
> panels etc IMO. Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag 
> electricity:grid=yes and electricity=no in the case of grid connected 
> houses experiencing a long-term power outage during a natural disaster?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> Regards, Lukas
>
> On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert 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:grid=yes/no/backup
>>     electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
>>     electricity=yes
>>     electricity=no
>>
>> [electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
>> instead of
>>
>>     electricity=grid
>>     electricity=generator
>>     electricity=yes
>>     electricity=no
>>
>> 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 
>>> <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 
>>> <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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201111/3ce42ca0/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list