Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[François Lacombe]

Hello,

Le lun. 21 nov. 2022 à 08:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Some offices are involved in the sale and administration of the utility.
>
It's true, and not in operation.
utility=* was designed with technical stuff in mind and it would not cause
so much harm to extend it to administrative facilities *with appropriate
building=* or office=* values* as proposed.
I just want to encourage to do it with caution.

> Buried utilities here were legally required  to be in separate trenches,
> that has changed so that one trench can be used for multiple utilities, so
> it may be required for the key 'utility' to accept multiple values.
>
utility=* covers ducts, not trenches (a single trench for several ducts,
indeed its better to do so).
The only situation where a single duct host several different utilities is
in utility tunnels. Here utility=multi would be more valuable than
utility=power;telecom;heating;whatever
https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/london-power-tunnels-project
=> utility=power
https://ceriu.qc.ca/system/files/2020-01/D3.5_Carolina%20Puig%20Gimeno_V2.pdf
(2000s utility tunnels) => utility=multi


> The key 'utility' has evolved over time from only  the key 'marker' to
> also accepting the tags 'man_made=utility_pole' and 'building=service'.
> Further evolution might take place.
>
Agree with this, if and only if we're able to always distinguish offices
from operational stuff and if we keep a single value in it.
Offices in building=service would be a mess for instance.
Allowing several values may encourage unwanted usage.

Le lun. 21 nov. 2022 à 08:43, stevea  a écrit :

>
> While I regret not doing simple wiki research that would have revealed a
> collision with my “out loud imagining” clearly-stated to be just that (an
> IMAGINED tagging scheme for utility=*), I do stand by my post as an
> exercise in potential (not necessarily actual, again, clearly stated)
> key=value pairs.
>

No offense intended and finally it may lead to a viable solution with using
existing tagging so it will be fine.

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[stevea]

On Nov 20, 2022, at 3:47 PM, François Lacombe  wrote:
> utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in every 
> situation.

While I regret not doing simple wiki research that would have revealed a 
collision with my “out loud imagining” clearly-stated to be just that (an 
IMAGINED tagging scheme for utility=*), I do stand by my post as an exercise in 
potential (not necessarily actual, again, clearly stated) key=value pairs.

I also agree that semicolon-separated values can be problematic for some 
parsers / routers / renderers / use-cases, although they are indeed used in our 
map.

Thanks to Warin for supporting that “further evolution” of the key space may 
continue to take place, as the specific key has already seen a fair bit of 
modification and growth since its inception.  Apologies if there was any 
confusion:  my intent was to encourage the imagining and potential development 
of a tagging scheme that might combine the semantics of “utility” and “office,” 
as it is a potentially very rich combination of syntax.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Warin]

On 21/11/22 10:47, François Lacombe wrote:

Good evening,

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 17:36, stevea  a écrit :

In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much
(approaching or even achieving?) all of this:
office=utility
utility=water;sewer;garbage
utility=accepts_payment

utility=cable_tv
utility=allows_equipment_exchange
utility=furnishes_service_equipment
utility:payment=in_person_only
utility:payment=kiosk
utility:payment=cash_only
utility:payment=accepts_checks

Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually
settle upon, but they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a
pretty big universe, as “utilities” encompass more than power /
energy, and there are a vast number of ways to “deal with
customers at an office.”  (There’s the office itself, what sort of
services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it may be
simply a drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments
are exchanged…).


utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in 
every situation.

Please don't introduce utility=power;gas;waste.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility

I've also answered here about its usage in this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_utility_office#Use_sub-key_instead

I'm not sure tagging offices with utility=* is really suitable for the 
current definition: offices aren't involved in production, 
transmission, distribution or delivery of power, telecommunications, 
gas, whatever.



Some offices are involved in the sale and administration of the utility.

Buried utilities here were legally required  to be in separate trenches, 
that has changed so that one trench can be used for multiple utilities, 
so it may be required for the key 'utility' to accept multiple values.


Many of the present values for the key 'utility' look to be what is 
being discuses for these offices.


The key 'utility' has evolved over time from only  the key 'marker' to 
also accepting the tags 'man_made=utility_pole' and 'building=service'. 
Further evolution might take place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[François Lacombe]

Good evening,

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 17:36, stevea  a écrit :

> In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much (approaching
> or even achieving?) all of this:
> office=utility
> utility=water;sewer;garbage
> utility=accepts_payment
>
> utility=cable_tv
> utility=allows_equipment_exchange
> utility=furnishes_service_equipment
> utility:payment=in_person_only
> utility:payment=kiosk
> utility:payment=cash_only
> utility:payment=accepts_checks
>
> Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually settle upon,
> but they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a pretty big universe,
> as “utilities” encompass more than power / energy, and there are a vast
> number of ways to “deal with customers at an office.”  (There’s the office
> itself, what sort of services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it
> may be simply a drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments
> are exchanged…).
>

utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in every
situation.
Please don't introduce utility=power;gas;waste.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility

I've also answered here about its usage in this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_utility_office#Use_sub-key_instead

I'm not sure tagging offices with utility=* is really suitable for the
current definition: offices aren't involved in production, transmission,
distribution or delivery of power, telecommunications, gas, whatever.

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 02:36, stevea  wrote:

> this missive attempts to sketch the outline of a possible tagging scheme
> for “utilities” in general.  This would be a fairly rich (complex) scheme
> if/as it were to encompass all of the sorts of “utility offices” there are
> around the world.  It would logically be sensible to broaden from simply
> “utility office” to encompass both the “office” component, the “utility”
> component and perhaps more.  But those two are rich enough to provide both
> a good start and much food for thought of a big tagging scheme.
>

Interesting possibilities for sure!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 19:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> office=government???
>

It could be, but not always?

Consider AGL (Australian Gas & Light for those overseas - a private company
providing electricity, gas, & now also internet & mobile phone services).

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[stevea]

On Nov 20, 2022, at 1:22 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Technically energy = power x time, so related things but not the same.

Thank you; that’s the simple answer to clear up any potentially remaining 
confusion.  Whether it does or not...

> Utilities would not only be energy/power (electric, gas, oil, coal and wood) 
> providers but also garbage collection, sewage, water, phone, cable TV and 
> internet.

Yes, this is well-stated.  And this varies a great deal around the world.  Some 
municipalities / jurisdictions offer zero, one, multiple or “all available” 
such utilities, others allow a competitive marketplace that allows a choice of 
things for, say, Internet (or wired telephone), but there may or may not be a 
choice of water, sewage or garbage.  A municipality may offer one or some 
services via a “franchise” agreement (with a cable TV operator, for example),  
There is a big universe of possibilities, and it is folly for OSM to try to 
cram all of these into a “one size fits all” tagging scheme.  This is true even 
for the “office” where, say, payments are taken, service is established, 
equipment is furnished / exchanged (e.g. a cable TV box), etc.

> So a second tag of 
> utility=electric/gas/oil/coal/wood/garbage_collection/sewage/water/phone/cable_tv/internet/*
>  semi colin delimited for multiple values... ???

In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much (approaching or 
even achieving?) all of this:
office=utility
utility=water;sewer;garbage
utility=accepts_payment

utility=cable_tv
utility=allows_equipment_exchange
utility=furnishes_service_equipment
utility:payment=in_person_only
utility:payment=kiosk
utility:payment=cash_only
utility:payment=accepts_checks

Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually settle upon, but 
they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a pretty big universe, as 
“utilities” encompass more than power / energy, and there are a vast number of 
ways to “deal with customers at an office.”  (There’s the office itself, what 
sort of services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it may be simply a 
drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments are exchanged…).

> On 20/11/22 10:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides 
>>> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>> 
>> yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
>> sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have 
>> a generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags 
>> the kind of services?
> 
> office=government???

Sometimes it is a government office (often at a municipal level, or, say 
admin_level=6,7,8), sometimes not.  These might be “monopoly” providers, and 
there doesn’t seem anything wrong with that:  I mean, how many different 
companies/jurisdictions are really needed to manage sewage in a given area?  
Sometimes it is a private company (like one mobile phone service vs. another).  
Without going too broad and beyond “power” (energy), this missive attempts to 
sketch the outline of a possible tagging scheme for “utilities” in general.  
This would be a fairly rich (complex) scheme if/as it were to encompass all of 
the sorts of “utility offices” there are around the world.  It would logically 
be sensible to broaden from simply “utility office” to encompass both the 
“office” component, the “utility” component and perhaps more.  But those two 
are rich enough to provide both a good start and much food for thought of a big 
tagging scheme.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Warin]

On 20/11/22 10:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:

In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides electricity, 
water, sewer, and internet.


yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have a 
generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags the 
kind of services?



office=government???




Technically energy = power x time, so related things but not the same.


In Australia homes are charged for the energy they use. They are limited 
to a maximum power by a hidden fuse behind the meter.


Industries are also charged for the energy they use .. and the maximum 
power drawn. Most industries have a set start up procedure to limit the 
maximum power drawn.



Utilities would not only be energy/power (electric, gas, oil, coal and 
wood) providers but also garbage collection, sewage, water, phone, cable 
TV and internet.



So a second tag of 
utility=electric/gas/oil/coal/wood/garbage_collection/sewage/water/phone/cable_tv/internet/* 
semi colin delimited for multiple values... ???



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 08:52:45 +0200, Dimitar  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.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:56, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
>> Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the better word 
>> for it.
>> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that is the case?  What is being provided is 
> energy, not power.


maybe we can agree they provide power and charge for energy?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides 
> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.  


yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have a 
generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags the 
kind of services?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[ael via Tagging]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:45:58PM +0200, Dimitar wrote:
> Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the better word
> for it.

That is just plain wrong. They have different dimensions.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Dimitar]

> What evidence do you have that is the case?  What is being provided 
is energy, not power.


From Cambridge dictionary:
power - electricity, especially when considering its use or production
energy - the power from something such as electricity or oil that can do 
work, such as providing light and heat

From Meram-Webster
power - a source or means of supplying energy
energy - usable power (such as heat or electricity)

> ...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.


> A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one 
service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both 
electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy 
too).  In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides 
electricity, water, sewer, and internet.


> That's something which is not common in Europe. The only close such 
case is an power company (EVN) which operates power infrastructure, 
heating infrastructure and sells power in the same area but these 
activities are separated in subsidiaries. Is that the case in the US or 
Xcel does not have subsidiaries for the different economic activities?


> There is no subsidiary.

Then using office=utility + utility=gas;power might be a good idea. What 
do you think?


On 18/11/2022 23:51, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 2:46 PM Dimitar  wrote:

Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the
better word for it.

What evidence do you have that is the case?  What is being provided is 
energy, not power.

...and if we mean electricity, why not use that in the tag?


> A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than
one service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides
both electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically
energy too).  In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned
utility provides electricity, water, sewer, and internet.

That's something which is not common in Europe. The only close
such case is an power company (EVN) which operates power
infrastructure, heating infrastructure and sells power in the same
area but these activities are separated in subsidiaries. Is that
the case in the US or Xcel does not have subsidiaries for the
different economic activities?

There is no subsidiary.

Mike

On 18/11/2022 23:31, Mike Thompson wrote:

Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not
power.  One gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts.  See
[0].  However, colloquially, the terms power and energy when it
comes to electric utilities are used interchangeably, although
"power company" seems to be favored vs. "energy company" in the
US where I live. If we want to be clear, why not
office=electric_utility (if that is what we mean)?

A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than
one service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides
both electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically
energy too).  In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned
utility provides electricity, water, sewer, and internet.

Mike


[0] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_vs_power

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:56 PM Dimitar
 wrote:

Hello.

I’m

[proposing](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office)

to introduce a new tag for power utility offices
(office=power_utility)
and deprecate the existing one (office=energy_supplier). The
rationale
behind this idea is that energy_supplier can be confusing to
most people.


Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:

* Here
* On the wiki talk page
* On the community forum


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 3:05 PM Matija Nalis <
mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr> wrote:

>
> Also, if being advanced consumer with higher power limits, you ALSO (in
> addition to
> two things above) have to pay for reactive power too, according to
> cos(phi)
> (beware of those inductive loads like compressors in air conditioners /
> heat pumps!
> Cheapest tiers luckily are waiwed from this payment, at least)

Industrial customers in the US are subject to this as well.  We call this
"power factor."  Usually devices are used to bring the current and voltage
back into phase, but if not, the costs can be quite high.


>
>

> Or if we desparately need a change, then go with even more inclusive tag
> like "office=public_utility",
> and then use subtag (like existing
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility) to map details
> in what business(es) it is exactly.
>
This is a good idea.


> > In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
> > electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>
> Agreed, see suggestion above.
> Out of curiosity, do you know how is it mapped currently in OSM?
>
Just checked, it is not.

Mike

>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 at 08:05, Matija Nalis <
mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr> wrote:

>
> However, "energy company" is not restricted to electrical energy.
> Over here in Croatia, another popular energent is natural gas.
>
> In fact, many of "electrical energy providers" are also
> "natural gas providers" over here, so such narrowly specified tag
> as "office=power_utility"  would make mapping them incorrect.
>
> So I would find sticking to tag with a wider meaning (like existing
> "office=energy_supplier")
> preferable.
>

Yep, same in Australia, where most of the major "power" companies also
provide gas connections, either piped natural gas, or bottled gas.

One, at least, has also recently set themselves up as an internet provider!

Or if we desparately need a change, then go with even more inclusive tag
> like "office=public_utility",
> and then use subtag (like existing
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility) to map details
> in what business(es) it is exactly.
>
> > In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
> > electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>

That would work nicely!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Matija Nalis]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:31:42 -0700, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not power.  One
> gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts. 

Well, it depends on the country. Over here in Croatia, you have to pay for 
max power too (by choosing which power consumer category you want to be in;
lower priced ones are limited to lower max power, e.g. 6kW; higher tiers allow 
more power, but cost more)

But yes, most of pricing is based on amount of electrical energy used 
(which is more properly measured in Joules, or if one wants to be SI-pedant 
in kg*m^2*s^-2, but power companies seem to stick to kWh nomenclature which 
actually does make some types of calculations easier)

Also, if being advanced consumer with higher power limits, you ALSO (in 
addition to 
two things above) have to pay for reactive power too, according to cos(phi) 
(beware of those inductive loads like compressors in air conditioners / heat 
pumps!
Cheapest tiers luckily are waiwed from this payment, at least)


> colloquially, the terms power and energy when it comes to electric
> utilities are used interchangeably, although "power company" seems to be
> favored vs. "energy company" in the US where I live.  If we want to be

> A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one
> service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both
> electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy too).

yes, "power" in that context usually implies "electrical energy".
However, "energy company" is not restricted to electrical energy.
Over here in Croatia, another popular energent is natural gas.

In fact, many of "electrical energy providers" are also 
"natural gas providers" over here, so such narrowly specified tag 
as "office=power_utility"  would make mapping them incorrect. 

So I would find sticking to tag with a wider meaning (like existing 
"office=energy_supplier") 
preferable.

Or if we desparately need a change, then go with even more inclusive tag like 
"office=public_utility",
and then use subtag (like existing 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility) to map details
in what business(es) it is exactly.

> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.

Agreed, see suggestion above.
Out of curiosity, do you know how is it mapped currently in OSM?

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:56 PM Dimitar  wrote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office)
>> to introduce a new tag for power utility offices (office=power_utility)
>> and deprecate the existing one (office=energy_supplier). The rationale
>> behind this idea is that energy_supplier can be confusing to most people.


-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 2:46 PM Dimitar  wrote:

> Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the better
> word for it.
>
What evidence do you have that is the case?  What is being provided is
energy, not power.

...and if we mean electricity, why not use that in the tag?

>
> > A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one
> service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both
> electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy too).
> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>
> That's something which is not common in Europe. The only close such case
> is an power company (EVN) which operates power infrastructure, heating
> infrastructure and sells power in the same area but these activities are
> separated in subsidiaries. Is that the case in the US or Xcel does not have
> subsidiaries for the different economic activities?
>
There is no subsidiary.

Mike


> On 18/11/2022 23:31, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not power.
> One gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts.  See [0].  However,
> colloquially, the terms power and energy when it comes to electric
> utilities are used interchangeably, although "power company" seems to be
> favored vs. "energy company" in the US where I live.  If we want to be
> clear, why not office=electric_utility (if that is what we mean)?
>
> A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one
> service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both
> electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy too).
> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>
> Mike
>
>
> [0] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_vs_power
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:56 PM Dimitar  wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I’m
>> [proposing](
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office)
>>
>> to introduce a new tag for power utility offices (office=power_utility)
>> and deprecate the existing one (office=energy_supplier). The rationale
>> behind this idea is that energy_supplier can be confusing to most people.
>>
>>
>> Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:
>>
>> * Here
>> * On the wiki talk page
>> * On the community forum
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Dimitar]

Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the better 
word for it.


> A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one 
service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both 
electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy 
too).  In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides 
electricity, water, sewer, and internet.


That's something which is not common in Europe. The only close such case 
is an power company (EVN) which operates power infrastructure, heating 
infrastructure and sells power in the same area but these activities are 
separated in subsidiaries. Is that the case in the US or Xcel does not 
have subsidiaries for the different economic activities?


On 18/11/2022 23:31, Mike Thompson wrote:
Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not 
power.  One gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts.  See [0].  
However, colloquially, the terms power and energy when it comes to 
electric utilities are used interchangeably, although "power company" 
seems to be favored vs. "energy company" in the US where I live.  If 
we want to be clear, why not office=electric_utility (if that is what 
we mean)?


A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one 
service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both 
electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy 
too).  In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility 
provides electricity, water, sewer, and internet.


Mike


[0] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_vs_power

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:56 PM Dimitar  wrote:

Hello.

I’m

[proposing](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office)

to introduce a new tag for power utility offices
(office=power_utility)
and deprecate the existing one (office=energy_supplier). The
rationale
behind this idea is that energy_supplier can be confusing to most
people.


Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:

* Here
* On the wiki talk page
* On the community forum


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Mike Thompson]

Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not power.  One
gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts.  See [0].  However,
colloquially, the terms power and energy when it comes to electric
utilities are used interchangeably, although "power company" seems to be
favored vs. "energy company" in the US where I live.  If we want to be
clear, why not office=electric_utility (if that is what we mean)?

A more general issue is that often utilities provide more than one
service.  Xcel, which operates in parts of the US, provides both
electricity and natural gas (the latter which is technically energy too).
In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides
electricity, water, sewer, and internet.

Mike


[0] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_vs_power

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:56 PM Dimitar  wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I’m
> [proposing](
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office)
>
> to introduce a new tag for power utility offices (office=power_utility)
> and deprecate the existing one (office=energy_supplier). The rationale
> behind this idea is that energy_supplier can be confusing to most people.
>
>
> Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:
>
> * Here
> * On the wiki talk page
> * On the community forum
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Matija Nalis]

Regarding deprecation of old tags, please follow this Discourse thread too:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/changing-rfc-time-for-proposals-including-deprecation/5661


On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 22:04:59 +0200, Dimitar  wrote:
> Link to the community forum thread: 
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/feature-proposal-rfc-power-utility-offices/5659


-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Dimitar]

Link to the community forum thread: 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/feature-proposal-rfc-power-utility-offices/5659



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 04.11.2015 um 07:16 schrieb John Willis :

>> The network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power 
>> distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get 
>> electricity you go to a commercial entity. So building=civic is not suitable 
>> there (I think)
> 
> This is a good point, and one of the reasons that the proposal was narrowed 
> down to exclude utilities, including only things commonly done by governments.


I believe the tag for the entity inside a building should not be a subtag of 
building but should be something like office or amenity. The building tag is 
about the building itself, regardless of its current utilization. building 
=civic would all be some sort of administration building (similar level of 
detail I guess)? Or would you want to add buildings with specific functions as 
well (e.g. water purification plants, road maintenance depot, prisons, fire 
station, homeland security, ...)?

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 04.11.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Gerd Petermann 
> :
> 
> E.ON,RWE,Vattenfall and EnBW. 
> I am sure there are offices somewhere, but probably not for the public.
> 


of course there are, at least in the big cities...


cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi Martin,


I know a shop in my town driven by EWE .

They sells power, internet access, telephone lines and maybe more.

I would not call that an office, EWE calls it "EWE ServicePunkt"


Gerd



Von: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 09:14
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office



sent from a phone

Am 04.11.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Gerd Petermann 
<gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com<mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>>:


E.ON,RWE,Vattenfall and EnBW.

I am sure there are offices somewhere, but probably not for the public.


of course there are, at least in the big cities...


cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> The building tag is about the building itself,

That is a good point. I don't want to throw all this in amenity. 

It isn't a shop... 

Office=*. ?

I always assume that a building at this level is usually dedicated, but I guess 
there are big building with many offices too...

What do you suggest? 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-04 9:49 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann :

> I would not call that an office, EWE calls it "EWE ServicePunkt"
>
>

well. then call it a shop or an amenity. Banks for instance are amenities
in OSM. You are right that "office" is typically used for back offices
(i.e. no customers, or only by appointment), while front facing offices
often get the shop tag.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> while front facing offices often get the shop tag.

Most offices that provide customer service for existing services or billing 
resolution don't seem like a shop. 

If the role for shop=* is so expansive, then it should be documented better and 
have 100 more values (at least). Perhaps a couple thousand. 

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-04 10:00 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

>
> That is a good point. I don't want to throw all this in amenity.
>


why not? There's still room ;-)



>
> It isn't a shop...
>
> Office=*. ?



maybe we should distinguish between amenity (open to the public) and office
(no public admitted)?
I'd maybe put everything into amenity because there will likely be cases
which have areas for both (public and back office).


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Joan]

Would be fine to me and I'd prefer this to the current sparse situation and
it really would make it much more coherent.

When I was looking for the proper tagging for power utilities common sense
directed me to the key power (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power) of for the water (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network)
So count on my vote when the RFC is there :)

2015-11-03 6:20 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:42 AM, johnw  wrote:
>
>> I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and
>> have a civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic
>> offices. (townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district
>> offices, etc.
>
>
> I want that too. It makes sense, and it's logical but that's no guarantee
> it'll make out of this "committee" where unanimity is so very elusive. LOL
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Marc Gemis]

Would you still use building=civic for power utility offices when it's a
commercial company ? The power distribution in Belgium is complex. The
network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power
distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get
electricity you go to a commercial entity. So building=civic is not
suitable there (I think)


regards

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:42 AM, johnw  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Joan  wrote:
>
> The tag has already been used a few times (there was four tags in
> different places of the world) see it here
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=power_utility#overview,
> Its counterpart, the water_utility has 35 ocurrences in the map
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=water_utility#overview
>
> 2015-10-24 0:22 GMT+02:00 Joan :
>
>> This is a proposal for tagging power utility offices,
>>
>
> I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and have
> a civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic offices.
> (townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district offices, etc.
>
> I would like to actually have something more umbrellaish than doing these
> one office at a time and coming up and doing voting for each one. we need
> each one, so lets make a subkey and define them all. the different utilitiy
> offices (which are usually state run, or state sanctioned monopolies for
> basic services) can easily be added.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic
>
> Javbw
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> The network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power 
> distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get 
> electricity you go to a commercial entity. So building=civic is not suitable 
> there (I think)

This is a good point, and one of the reasons that the proposal was narrowed 
down to exclude utilities, including only things commonly done by governments. 

This is a variable across the world, and is different for different utilities 
in different regions of different countries. 

Perhaps it might be good to make a office=utilities
And utilities=* and have it cover the gamut of all the stuff you commonly would 
have to pay for for a house or rental property 
(water/power/sewer/sanitation/trash/recycle) and leave telecom out? What common 
things are a utility common in most counties (outside of telecom?) 

I'm not sure where the line is, but I wantto document these beyond a simple 
office=water, as I think the should be tagged differently so they can be 
rendered differently (eventually). Just as residential is rendered very 
differently from commercial - the landuse for governmental complexes (and their 
buildings) should be easily visually distinct from the the other buildings - 
Especially with the color palette simplification -carto recently did. But maybe 
keeping the utilities out is best. 

Perhaps just making a bunch of office=* tags is the way to handle it - but when 
the water district office that manages your house's water supply is tagged 
office=water, does the filtered bottled water guy also get office=water ? 

I wanted to have some tag to separate the state sanctioned monopolies/duopolies 
(or truly governmental) utility offices from the standard commercial offices. 

Javbw 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Gerd Petermann]

In Germany, you probably don't have to care at all. By default, you have a 
contract

with one of the major comanies, if you want, you can chose another via Internet.

My understanding is that the network is in the hand of a 4 large

companies: E.ON,RWE,Vattenfall and EnBW.

I am sure there are offices somewhere, but probably not for the public.


Gerd



Von: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 06:46
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

Would you still use building=civic for power utility offices when it's a 
commercial company ? The power distribution in Belgium is complex. The network 
is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power distribution by 
commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get electricity you go to 
a commercial entity. So building=civic is not suitable there (I think)


regards

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:42 AM, johnw <jo...@mac.com<mailto:jo...@mac.com>> 
wrote:



On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Joan <aseq...@gmail.com<mailto:aseq...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

The tag has already been used a few times (there was four tags in different 
places of the world) see it here 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=power_utility#overview,
Its counterpart, the water_utility has 35 ocurrences in the map 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=water_utility#overview

2015-10-24 0:22 GMT+02:00 Joan <aseq...@gmail.com<mailto:aseq...@gmail.com>>:
This is a proposal for tagging power utility offices,

I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and have a 
civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic offices. 
(townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district offices, etc.

I would like to actually have something more umbrellaish than doing these one 
office at a time and coming up and doing voting for each one. we need each one, 
so lets make a subkey and define them all. the different utilitiy offices 
(which are usually state run, or state sanctioned monopolies for basic 
services) can easily be added.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Dave Swarthout]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:42 AM, johnw  wrote:

> I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and have
> a civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic offices.
> (townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district offices, etc.


I want that too. It makes sense, and it's logical but that's no guarantee
it'll make out of this "committee" where unanimity is so very elusive. LOL


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Joan]

The tag has already been used a few times (there was four tags in different
places of the world) see it here
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=power_utility#overview,
Its counterpart, the water_utility has 35 ocurrences in the map
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=water_utility#overview

2015-10-24 0:22 GMT+02:00 Joan :

> This is a proposal for tagging power utility offices, i.e. the place where
> you go to sign up for power & light / electricity services, pay your power
> bill, or apply for permits. There is already a whole category for power
> related infrastructure at WikiProject_Power_networks
> , but
> there's no current tag for the offices. This is an important feature to
> show on maps since everyone who lives in a city will probably have to visit
> it at least once to sign up for power services. I created this proposal
> starting from the Tag:office=water_utility
>  because
> the need for it is quite the same and it would make sense to have both.
>
>
> The proposal page is at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_utility_office
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[johnw]

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Joan  wrote:
> 
> The tag has already been used a few times (there was four tags in different 
> places of the world) see it here 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=power_utility#overview 
> , 
> Its counterpart, the water_utility has 35 ocurrences in the map 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/office=water_utility#overview 
> 
> 
> 2015-10-24 0:22 GMT+02:00 Joan >:
> This is a proposal for tagging power utility offices, 

I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and have a 
civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic offices. 
(townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district offices, etc. 

I would like to actually have something more umbrellaish than doing these one 
office at a time and coming up and doing voting for each one. we need each one, 
so lets make a subkey and define them all. the different utilitiy offices 
(which are usually state run, or state sanctioned monopolies for basic 
services) can easily be added. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging