[Tagging] Power proposals
Hi mappers, Some work is still under way on the power proposals. We have now four main entries on proposed features page. All proposal stuff must had completely been moved from other wiki pages. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/list#Proposed_features_-_Power * Power generation refinement is currently Proposed since 07th February. Some key points about generator types must be solved before any voting process. * Power transmission refinement is still Draft and waiting for a little cleanup to cover up a more formal shape. Let's consider all refinement points are able to be discussed on discussion page. * Power substation stuff had been moved by Polderrunner on a new proposal which is now maintained by him. * I've created new proposal about power routing which you can find here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal It's based upon the Bahnpirat's and Surly's work. Many thanks to Polderrunner, Bahnpirat, Surly, Oligo, Don-vip, FK270673, Alv and whoever else I forgot for their useful comments. Have a look and don't hesitate to get involve in debate on discussion pages. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Could you explain when we should map several adjacent plants, and when they would be considered one big power plant consisting of several parts? How can the distinction be made? Does the area have to be contiguous? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Good question. It may be up to each mapper to make the distinction. Myself I would definitely use operators distinguishing : If a whole big plant is divided between two or more operators, I would map a separate area for each operator. Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? Cheers. 2013/3/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Could you explain when we should map several adjacent plants, and when they would be considered one big power plant consisting of several parts? How can the distinction be made? Does the area have to be contiguous? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
* François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu [2013-03-14 18:52 +0100]: Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? I know of a couple. In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497lon=-77.45533zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Generating_Station The reverse situation gould, I guess, be illustrated with something like Maryland's Chalk Point Generating Station, where there are multiple generators some distance away from each other. It's pretty clear in this case, though, that they're all part of the same facility, so I don't know how illustrative it might be as an example. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.55211lon=-76.69028zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Point_Generating_Station ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
Hi Phil, 2013/3/14 Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497lon=-77.45533zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Generating_Station For this one I would use at least 2 areas to map the DGS with operator=private_operators_name and a second one to map the MCRF with operator=another. I say at least 'cause It can vary with the geography of that place. The reverse situation gould, I guess, be illustrated with something like Maryland's Chalk Point Generating Station, where there are multiple generators some distance away from each other. It's pretty clear in this case, though, that they're all part of the same facility, so I don't know how illustrative it might be as an example. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.55211lon=-76.69028zoom=15layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Point_Generating_Station The right question is does the room between generators is owned by the same company? If yes, you can use only one area to map the whole facility because that kind of area is often private and reserved for some extension. In France, beside our ~20 nuclear plants EDF (who operates that kind of plant) is keeping enough room to build extensions of the existing buildings. That reservation is fenced with the rest of the plant and there's no separation between the production facility. So plant area would concern the builded and non-builded zone with operator=EDF. I hope I'm clear enough :) I would write something in proposal to explain more precisely the way we can choose areas around plants. Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging