[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
lrichert at posteo.net
Sat Nov 14 19:57:52 UTC 2020
I do actually like the word input for generator and have been thinking
that 'battery:origin' makes no sense either to specify the type of
origin. Keys such as 'electricity:grid:origin=*',
'electricity:generator:input=*', and 'electricity:battery:type=*' would
be more distinct and would separate them. My only problem with that is
that the wikipage would probably need a flowchart to explain the tagging
:/ What do you think?
On 14.11.20 20:07, François Lacombe wrote:
> Thank you Lukas for answers
> Le sam. 14 nov. 2020 à 17:56, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de
> <mailto:lrichert at posteo.de>> a écrit :
> Hi François,
> the combination of electricity:grid=yes with either
> electricity:origin=* or electricity:grid:origin=* would point to
> the origin being only about financial flows as advertised
> Agree with that.
> electricity:grid:origin isn't part of the proposal, will we have to
> approve it?
> For the purpose of filtering out amenities, e.g. charging
> stations, that only use 'green' electricity it is still useful to
> tag electricity:origin=* or electricity:generator:origin=* in
> combination with electricity:generator=yes.
> Don't agree with that :)
> This filtering won't be accurate at all and will encourage people to
> think claimed origin through a power grid is equivalent to certainty
> of locally obtained electricity (which isn't)
> I'm clearly against any association between a generator device and
> 'origin' word. electricity:origin should relate to grid/market only
> and remain a claim with no physical reality.
> Alternatively, there would need to be a tagged relation to the
> specific generator and the end users it supplies which would be
> considerably harder to query and many OSM editers seem to find
> relations confusing. Therefore, I think the slight bit of
> redundancy is useful to explicitly tag this on the amenity.
> Understood, that would enable to check consistency as well.
> Furthermore, the word 'origin' is used, not only to avoid two tags
> with very similar meanings that can be easily distinguished by
> combination with the infrastructure tag
> I respectfully disagree, they don't have a similar meaning in many
> Merging both in a single key will only be accurate when the claim is
> equivalent to local production which isn't necessary: you buy solar
> energy and backup with diesel more often than backup with solar.
> , but also since 'electricity:source' would then have a double
> meaning with 'the survey/map/place where the knowledge of the
> electricity was obtained', which is apparently a problem for some
> other tags using source as a keyword.
> i'm currently thinking about refine generator:* subkeys and it's sure
> this discussion will be really inspiring.
> Indeed source should be avoided and I keep that in mind.
> In power context "source" refers to inputs and as we already have
> generator:output, why shouldn't we have generator:input?
> input:wind=X kW
> output:electricity= Y kW
> All the best
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging