[Tagging] Proposed Feature - Voting - Electricity

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 21:46:35 UTC 2021


I'm not sure that this is the minor point that you think it is.

The definition offered is "Indicate the electricity source used in a public
building or amenity."

There are 430 million buildings currently tagged, and it's a legitimate
concern that we don't want to tag the mere fact that a building has
electric service on so many objects.  I'm in favor of tagging "a place
where I can go to access or purchase access to electricity", much in along
the lines of amenity=device_charging_station.

Electricity *as an amenity* is a far cry from "the electricity source used
in a [...] building"

Now, the text in the proposal section describes the "availability and
access to electricity" rather than the *mere fact* that the building is
electrified.  So, I suspect that you intend it the way I described and that
the definition in the info box is just an accidental holdover from a prior
version of the proposal and could simply be fixed as a typo to match the
description.  That shouldn't invalidate the proposal unless people feel
strongly otherwise.

I'm thinking the definition you want is something like "indicate whether
there is a publicly accessible electricity source"

If I, as an arbitrary member of the public, am able to walk into a place
and use the electricity, it is a reasonable thing to tag, and is a very
different concept from "is electrified".  Should I assume that every public
building in a first-world country has a plug available where I'm able to
plug in my phone and charge it?  I don't think this is a good assumption at
all.  A supermarket could have electricity, but not in a way that's
accessible to the public.

Conversely, given the definition I've described above, electricity=no
doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I guess it's intended to mean "there is
no electricity available here, even though you might assume there would
be"?  I'm just not sure how to use that value, and it strikes me as
equivalent to tagging ice_cream=no to indicate that a shop doesn't sell ice
cream.

I hear your frustration, but we are talking about a tag which has the
potential to touch hundreds of millions of objects in an undesired way if
not carefully and intentionally described.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:05 PM Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
> the proposal doesn't encourage pointless spam. I have already said that I
> agree with you and will add that language into the final wiki page,
> although I personally think that it is a given that one shouldn't tag
> things when there is a clear default. Abstain from the vote if you must - I
> asked often enough if there were any other small fixes that need doing, but
> I strongly object to the word *encouraging* in your text. Encouraging
> would be if I explicitly asked people to tag this on every public amenity,
> which I don't.
>
> Unfortunately I can't change the wording during the vote but this is a
> truly minor change that can be done afterward. You seem to be trying to
> find any reason to vote against it - it's quite tiring - instead of
> focussing on the substance of the proposal.
>
> Regards, Lukas
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210120/f3cece3e/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list