[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 08:52:45 +0200, Dimitar <osm.dimitar155 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What evidence do you have that is the case?  What is being provided is energy, not power.
>
>  From Cambridge dictionary:
> energy - the power from something such as electricity or oil that can do work, such as providing light and heat
>  From Meram-Webster
> energy - usable power (such as heat or electricity)

which both reinforce that "energy" is correct word for, well, different types of energy.

> > ...and if we mean electricity, why not use that in the tag?
>
> Because the current value has been documented by someone in 2016 when it 
> had about 100 uses or less.

I think the question was about your proposal, i.e. why "office=power_utility" if something like
"office=electrical_utility" or similar would be much clearer. But it does not matter IMHO, as I think 
that tag is to narrow....

> > There is no subsidiary.
>
> Then using office=utility + utility=gas;power might be a good idea. What 
> do you think?

Yes, such more general tag would cover it.

However 2 important points:

- while office=utility is actually already used (but undocumented), its usage is tiny,
  with just 107 uses (compare that to "office=water_utility" with 2500+ uses and wiki documentation, 
  and "office=energy_supplier" with 4700+ uses and wiki documentation)
  
  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/office#values
  
- while adding tags for things that nobody has yet ever mapped is small and adequate for proposal process,
  cost of CHANGING the existing situation is MUCH higher. See
  https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/changing-rfc-time-for-proposals-including-deprecation/5661/2
  for details.

So it must be calculated if benefits outweigh the costs. 

Given the conversation exchanged so far, I think that the costs are much higher than the potential benefits.

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.