[Tagging] Proposed feature - Voting - electricity

Lukas Richert lrichert at posteo.de
Fri Jan 1 14:18:58 UTC 2021


The idea of tagging this is that if someone, e.g a traveller, shows up 
to charge something they can reasonably assume if something is tagged 
electricity=yes that they will be able to charge their phone/laptop etc. 
If something is tagged as intermittent, then there is a significant 
chance that usage of electricity won't be possible.  For context, people 
in the US experience 1.1 outages/yr and thus most sources there would 
likely be classified as reliable, whereas a country like Ghana 
experiences 1.5 interruptions per week.

I don't intend for this to be used to map if someone should really 
consider investing in a UPS - no one should need to hook up there 
hospital devices on a whim in a cafe and then need to have a perfect 
power supply. Tagging the quality of electricity is outside of the scope 
of the proposal and if necessary a separate one should be drawn up.

Also, scheduled power cuts are not included in the intermittent outage 
count - the schedule should then be tagged as electricity:conditional=*

- Lukas

On 01/01/2021 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 1. Jan 2021, at 14:19, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:
>>
>> I would say common sense dictates that not having electricity for 
>> some minutes 2-3 times a year does not represent a significant 
>> probability that electricity will be unavailable.
>>
>
>
> but it means that while it would be generally available you could not 
> really rely on it, btw. even if the outage was some seconds and not 
> minutes.
>
>
>> As mentioned in the paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2020.106828 
>> <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2020.106828>, it seems that there is 
>> no clear definition of what constitutes reliable electricity access. 
>> The definition proposed in the linked paper: an electricity source is 
>> reliable if "a maximum threshold of 12 outages in a typical year for 
>> SAIFI and 12 hours of power outage per year" is not exceeded. This 
>> seems reasonable and could be included to define what "significant" 
>> means in this case.
>>
>
> I don’t share this conclusion, having in average an outage per month 
> would be seen quite unreliable in some contexts. Definitely worth 
> getting a power backup / UPS. For example I never spent a thought on 
> power backups in Germany, because it happened at most once every few 
> years, while after moving to Italy I found that almost everybody using 
> a desktop computer had an UPS, and for good reason, several outages 
> (seconds usually) a year made it a good investment also for home use. 
> Now in both countries it is probably safe to say that there is 
> complete (there are of course many remote places with no coverage, 
> like alpin huts etc., complete regarding settlements) and 
> uninterrupted coverage, but regarding reliability, the differences - 
> while neglectible compared to what was discussed here, 3 hours a day 
> without electricity - are still significant.
>
> From my point of view, 12 outages a year are not what I’d call 
> reliable. I am aware that other regions of the globe would be very 
> happy with this kind of service. For which context is this tagging 
> thought for?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210101/19487193/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list