[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
lrichert at posteo.de
Sun Nov 29 00:54:08 UTC 2020
I have reworked the proposal
include the separation of the source tag and a further example including
To avoid confusion, I have decided to keep the secondary namespace in
the source tags even though they are somewhat redundant. Although in the
case of the Shoals Laboratory, something like grid:input would make
sense as well since the grid is well-defined!
Are there any further comments or undiscussed problems?
On 15.11.20 19:37, François Lacombe wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
> Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 02:46, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de
> <mailto:lrichert at posteo.de>> a écrit :
> I was actually thinking of the type of battery, i.e. flywheel,
> LiOn, etc. Although it would probably also be interesting to
> figure out a tagging scheme to classify batteries by type,
> capacity etc. for the future.
> That's a good topic
> However be careful to not extend the proposal too much. Classification
> of batteries would deserve a dedicated document and vote.
> And it's true that :grid, :generator, and :battery as second
> namespaces are redundant if the source keys can be restricted to
> only being usable if the corresponding infrastructure key is used.
> The only issue I see with separating the tagging like this if the
> general source of electricity is advertised (e.g. 'renewable' in a
> supermarket and you can't determine if that's because they're
> connected to the grid or they have a small wind turbine out
> back..rather unlikely but still). I think that it's likely easy to
> tell or would also be advertised if they had a local generator. Or
> perhaps would then have to be left untagged.
> If such a situation occurs, you'll have to tag both grid and
> generator with two separate tags.
> If you'd like to add such a table to the wiki, feel free! :)
> I'll take time to do so shortly
> All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging