[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Sat Nov 14 22:49:10 UTC 2020

Lukas:  Yes, I agree it seems like you are on a good track to thinking through the structure (of electricity and how it might be better / best tagged) in a deeper way that will allow you to design a robust syntax (tagging) for electricity.  However, whether this initial sketch is something that "should completely cover all cases..." really falls into the category of "only time will tell!"  It's good to be hopeful about one's own designs meeting present and future requirements, though it is much better to get other eyes on it (like you do here, and why our proposal process exists) so that you might enjoy the benefits of crowdsourcing, even when that is the sometimes head-scratching work of designing strong, sensible tagging.

I appreciate that you reflect back to the list here that deep thought about a rich, full world of possibilities for many, most or even all aspects of the semantics that you hope for the syntax to capture is a serious requirement for the development of good tagging schemes going forward in OSM.  May all of us who develop tags (whether with formal proposals or not by using free-form tagging that hasn't been used in OSM before) take the same care to design well-constructed syntax / tagging schemes.  Our map data deserve the most crisp syntax, fully devoid of ambiguity, that we are able to devise.


On Nov 14, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:
> I've been thinking more about this and I think the subkeys grid, generator and battery should cover any conceivable method (for now!) to acquire electricity. So a grid is any collection of multiple generators/batteries/substations/transformers, a generator is a device that locally produces electricity and a battery (either chemical or mechanical) is something that locally stores energy for later usage. 
> The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no (i.e. electricity:battery=no), where yes means the device/grid is always connected and it is usually (daily?) used. The term backup then means that the device is only used when the usual device reaches its capacity or fails, so it is not always on/connected. The type of backup, be it UPS or stand-by, and the length of time that it can keep systems running could then also be tagged. To specify exactly which devices are kept running it might then be useful to have a relation-tagging scheme for circuits but I think this would be outside the scope of the electricity tag which should only note the presence of the systems in a building/amenity. This could then be a flag for e.g. firemen. The term no would then just mean that the specified building amenity does not have a grid/generator/battery. If it's unknown, it should be left untagged.
> I think this should completely cover all cases of buildings having electricity? and the specific tagging for backup systems could then be discussed separately. And if a new method of acquiring electricity is introduced (wireless charging?) it could be easily added to the current tagging.

More information about the Tagging mailing list