Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Hi Lukas

This proposal gets better and better and it's really encouraging, thank you.

Le dim. 29 nov. 2020 à 01:57, Lukas Richert  a écrit :

> Although in the case of the Shoals Laboratory, something like grid:input
> would make sense as well since the grid is well-defined!
>

Then users will have to look to the grid definition.
It's harder to maintain when this information is redundant on the building
I think

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

I have reworked the proposal 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity to 
include the separation of the source tag and a further example including 
battery storage.


To avoid confusion, I have decided to keep the secondary namespace in 
the source tags even though they are somewhat redundant. Although in the 
case of the Shoals Laboratory, something like grid:input would make 
sense as well since the grid is well-defined!


Are there any further comments or undiscussed problems?

Regards

Lukas



On 15.11.20 19:37, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Lukas,

Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 02:46, Lukas Richert > a écrit :


Hi,

I was actually thinking of the type of battery, i.e. flywheel,
LiOn, etc. Although it would probably also be interesting to
figure out a tagging scheme to classify batteries by type,
capacity etc. for the future.

That's a good topic
However be careful to not extend the proposal too much. Classification 
of batteries would deserve a dedicated document and vote.


And it's true that :grid, :generator, and :battery as second
namespaces are redundant if the source keys can be restricted to
only being usable if the corresponding infrastructure key is used.

Great

The only issue I see with separating the tagging like this if the
general source of electricity is advertised (e.g. 'renewable' in a
supermarket and you can't determine if that's because they're
connected to the grid or they have a small wind turbine out
back..rather unlikely but still). I think that it's likely easy to
tell or would also be advertised if they had a local generator. Or
perhaps would then have to be left untagged.

 If such a situation occurs, you'll have to tag both grid and 
generator with two separate tags.


If you'd like to add such a table to the wiki, feel free! :)

I'll take time to do so shortly

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Hi Lukas,

Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 02:46, Lukas Richert  a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I was actually thinking of the type of battery, i.e. flywheel, LiOn, etc.
> Although it would probably also be interesting to figure out a tagging
> scheme to classify batteries by type, capacity etc. for the future.
>
That's a good topic
However be careful to not extend the proposal too much. Classification of
batteries would deserve a dedicated document and vote.

> And it's true that :grid, :generator, and :battery as second namespaces
> are redundant if the source keys can be restricted to only being usable if
> the corresponding infrastructure key is used.
>
Great

> The only issue I see with separating the tagging like this if the general
> source of electricity is advertised (e.g. 'renewable' in a supermarket and
> you can't determine if that's because they're connected to the grid or they
> have a small wind turbine out back..rather unlikely but still). I think
> that it's likely easy to tell or would also be advertised if they had a
> local generator. Or perhaps would then have to be left untagged.
>
 If such a situation occurs, you'll have to tag both grid and generator
with two separate tags.

> If you'd like to add such a table to the wiki, feel free! :)
>
I'll take time to do so shortly

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[stevea]

Outstanding!  Here we see Lucas well-separating "meaning spaces" apart at the 
same time he's both looking towards the future as he offers others to sensibly 
extend the table given the structure he has started it with.  Bravo, sir.  Good 
things grow like this, with all the right ingredients in the mix to make it a 
future namespace and tagging scheme we can be proud of:  sensible, concise, 
tag-as-much-as-we-know-now (while there also being structure if there ARE more 
things we know and so can tag specifically).

The 21st century ahead for electricity.  Wow, that's an exciting place we 
imagine in many ways and we don't quite know now how it will unfold.  Tag what 
we know.  Sometimes some restructure happens.

I don't mind that we spell out our good methods as we go about making them.  
Sometimes simply agreeing on the specifics of our intentions (out loud) is a 
good idea.  There are all kinds of good examples in OSM already.

Map well.  I see Lucas mapping well and I am grateful to participate in the 
conversation.  So glad to see things vetted among others.

On Nov 14, 2020, at 5:43 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:
> I was actually thinking of the type of battery, i.e. flywheel, LiOn, etc. 
> Although it would probably also be interesting to figure out a tagging scheme 
> to classify batteries by type, capacity etc. for the future. And it's true 
> that :grid, :generator, and :battery as second namespaces are redundant if 
> the source keys can be restricted to only being usable if the corresponding 
> infrastructure key is used. 
> 
> The only issue I see with separating the tagging like this if the general 
> source of electricity is advertised (e.g. 'renewable' in a supermarket and 
> you can't determine if that's because they're connected to the grid or they 
> have a small wind turbine out back..rather unlikely but still). I think that 
> it's likely easy to tell or would also be advertised if they had a local 
> generator. Or perhaps would then have to be left untagged.
> 
> If you'd like to add such a table to the wiki, feel free! :)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi,

I was actually thinking of the type of battery, i.e. flywheel, LiOn, 
etc. Although it would probably also be interesting to figure out a 
tagging scheme to classify batteries by type, capacity etc. for the 
future. And it's true that :grid, :generator, and :battery as second 
namespaces are redundant if the source keys can be restricted to only 
being usable if the corresponding infrastructure key is used.


The only issue I see with separating the tagging like this if the 
general source of electricity is advertised (e.g. 'renewable' in a 
supermarket and you can't determine if that's because they're connected 
to the grid or they have a small wind turbine out back..rather unlikely 
but still). I think that it's likely easy to tell or would also be 
advertised if they had a local generator. Or perhaps would then have to 
be left untagged.


If you'd like to add such a table to the wiki, feel free! :)

Best regards,

Lukas

On 15.11.20 01:49, François Lacombe wrote:

Lukas,

Le sam. 14 nov. 2020 à 21:00, Lukas Richert > a écrit :


Hi François,

I do actually like the word input for generator and have been
thinking that 'battery:origin' makes no sense either to specify
the type of origin. Keys such as 'electricity:grid:origin=*',
'electricity:generator:input=*', and 'electricity:battery:type=*'
would be more distinct and would separate them. My only problem
with that is that the wikipage would probably need a flowchart to
explain the tagging :/ What do you think?

That's an interesting point.
Do you mean electricity:battery:type should refer to the source of 
electricity that feeds the battery?
Let's keep in mind that batteries are probably charged with the same 
electricity used in place.
It won't change anything regarding origin or local supply source 
quality (electricity won't become greener).


I think electricity:origin is enough, no need to add :grid inside but 
only restrict its usage with electricity:grid=yes, for sake of simplicity.


With a simpler origin definition, a table would be enough.
A table similar to Infrastructure table could be completed to give the 
applicable tagging suitable for each Infrastructure situation


Let me know how do you feel and I could try to propose something for 
this table


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Lukas,

Le sam. 14 nov. 2020 à 21:00, Lukas Richert  a écrit :

> Hi François,
>
> I do actually like the word input for generator and have been thinking
> that 'battery:origin' makes no sense either to specify the type of origin.
> Keys such as 'electricity:grid:origin=*', 'electricity:generator:input=*',
> and 'electricity:battery:type=*' would be more distinct and would separate
> them. My only problem with that is that the wikipage would probably need a
> flowchart to explain the tagging :/ What do you think?
>
That's an interesting point.
Do you mean electricity:battery:type should refer to the source of
electricity that feeds the battery?
Let's keep in mind that batteries are probably charged with the same
electricity used in place.
It won't change anything regarding origin or local supply source quality
(electricity won't become greener).

I think electricity:origin is enough, no need to add :grid inside but only
restrict its usage with electricity:grid=yes, for sake of simplicity.

With a simpler origin definition, a table would be enough.
A table similar to Infrastructure table could be completed to give the
applicable tagging suitable for each Infrastructure situation

Let me know how do you feel and I could try to propose something for this
table

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[stevea]

Lukas:  Yes, I agree it seems like you are on a good track to thinking through 
the structure (of electricity and how it might be better / best tagged) in a 
deeper way that will allow you to design a robust syntax (tagging) for 
electricity.  However, whether this initial sketch is something that "should 
completely cover all cases..." really falls into the category of "only time 
will tell!"  It's good to be hopeful about one's own designs meeting present 
and future requirements, though it is much better to get other eyes on it (like 
you do here, and why our proposal process exists) so that you might enjoy the 
benefits of crowdsourcing, even when that is the sometimes head-scratching work 
of designing strong, sensible tagging.

I appreciate that you reflect back to the list here that deep thought about a 
rich, full world of possibilities for many, most or even all aspects of the 
semantics that you hope for the syntax to capture is a serious requirement for 
the development of good tagging schemes going forward in OSM.  May all of us 
who develop tags (whether with formal proposals or not by using free-form 
tagging that hasn't been used in OSM before) take the same care to design 
well-constructed syntax / tagging schemes.  Our map data deserve the most crisp 
syntax, fully devoid of ambiguity, that we are able to devise.

SteveA

On Nov 14, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Lukas Richert  wrote:
> I've been thinking more about this and I think the subkeys grid, generator 
> and battery should cover any conceivable method (for now!) to acquire 
> electricity. So a grid is any collection of multiple 
> generators/batteries/substations/transformers, a generator is a device that 
> locally produces electricity and a battery (either chemical or mechanical) is 
> something that locally stores energy for later usage. 
> 
> The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no (i.e. 
> electricity:battery=no), where yes means the device/grid is always connected 
> and it is usually (daily?) used. The term backup then means that the device 
> is only used when the usual device reaches its capacity or fails, so it is 
> not always on/connected. The type of backup, be it UPS or stand-by, and the 
> length of time that it can keep systems running could then also be tagged. To 
> specify exactly which devices are kept running it might then be useful to 
> have a relation-tagging scheme for circuits but I think this would be outside 
> the scope of the electricity tag which should only note the presence of the 
> systems in a building/amenity. This could then be a flag for e.g. firemen. 
> The term no would then just mean that the specified building amenity does not 
> have a grid/generator/battery. If it's unknown, it should be left untagged.
> 
> I think this should completely cover all cases of buildings having 
> electricity? and the specific tagging for backup systems could then be 
> discussed separately. And if a new method of acquiring electricity is 
> introduced (wireless charging?) it could be easily added to the current 
> tagging.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi François,

I do actually like the word input for generator and have been thinking 
that 'battery:origin' makes no sense either to specify the type of 
origin. Keys such as 'electricity:grid:origin=*', 
'electricity:generator:input=*', and 'electricity:battery:type=*' would 
be more distinct and would separate them. My only problem with that is 
that the wikipage would probably need a flowchart to explain the tagging 
:/ What do you think?


Regards, Lukas

On 14.11.20 20:07, François Lacombe wrote:

Thank you Lukas for answers

Le sam. 14 nov. 2020 à 17:56, Lukas Richert > a écrit :


Hi François,

the combination of electricity:grid=yes with either
electricity:origin=* or electricity:grid:origin=* would point to
the origin being only about financial flows as advertised
on-the-ground.

Agree with that.
electricity:grid:origin isn't part of the proposal, will we have to 
approve it?


For the purpose of filtering out amenities, e.g. charging
stations, that only use 'green' electricity it is still useful to
tag electricity:origin=* or electricity:generator:origin=* in
combination with electricity:generator=yes.

Don't agree with that :)
This filtering won't be accurate at all and will encourage people to 
think claimed origin through a power grid is equivalent to certainty 
of locally obtained electricity (which isn't)
I'm clearly against any association between a generator device and 
'origin' word. electricity:origin should relate to grid/market only 
and remain a claim with no physical reality.


Alternatively, there would need to be a tagged relation to the
specific generator and the end users it supplies which would be
considerably harder to query and many OSM editers seem to find
relations confusing. Therefore, I think the slight bit of
redundancy is useful to explicitly tag this on the amenity.

Understood, that would enable to check consistency as well.

Furthermore, the word 'origin' is used, not only to avoid two tags
with very similar meanings that can be easily distinguished by
combination with the infrastructure tag

I respectfully disagree, they don't have a similar meaning in many 
situations.
Merging both in a single key will only be accurate when the claim is 
equivalent to local production which isn't necessary: you buy solar 
energy and backup with diesel more often than backup with solar.


, but also since 'electricity:source' would then have a double
meaning with 'the survey/map/place where the knowledge of the
electricity was obtained', which is apparently a problem for some
other tags using source as a keyword.

i'm currently thinking about refine generator:* subkeys and it's sure 
this discussion will be really inspiring.

Indeed source should be avoided and I keep that in mind.
In power context "source" refers to inputs and as we already have 
generator:output, why shouldn't we have generator:input?

generator:input=wind
input:wind=X kW
output:electricity= Y kW

All the best

François

___
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 - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi Paul,

I'm not quite sure if I correctly understood what you meant, so 
correct/explain more if I get it wrong! My sole goal with the 
infrastructure part of the tagging is to specify if a connection exists 
sometimes, always or never. In the case of solar panels, even though 
they don't produce electricity at night, they are always connected so 
the building would then be tagged as 'electricity:generator=yes'.


So far, I've not even attempted to incorporate the method with which the 
generator is connected to the grid (if there is a connection). If think 
for that it would be easiest to have a separate tag. Overall, I think I 
mean to only generally cover all cases, but perhaps with not as much 
detail as you envision. I think that needs more and different tags to 
keep things clear.


As to the electric vehicles, I think it would be fine to then tag 
electricity:battery=yes and then have a separate tag like 
battery:type=electric_vehicle or some such.


Cheers, Lukas

On 14.11.20 18:43, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 17:24, Lukas Richert > wrote:


The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no
(i.e. electricity:battery=no), where *yes *means the device/grid
is always connected and it is usually (daily?) used. The term
*backup* then means that the device is only used when the usual
device reaches its capacity or fails, so it is not always
on/connected.


I'm not committing to supporting or opposing this scheme, just 
bikeshedding.

But it's a BIG bikeshed.

It isn't as simple as your tagging scheme makes out.

A photovoltaic system for a house may charge batteries, which come into
play when there is no sun (it's night or it's too cloudy).  There is 
no grid

connection at all.

A photovoltaic system for a house may provide electricity when it can,
with the grid providing electricity when the photovoltaic system cannot.
There are no batteries involved.

A photovoltaic system for a house not only provides electricity for the
house, it also feeds electricity into the grid (for which the owner gets
a rebate on the bill) with the grid supplying power when the
photovoltaic system cannot.  There are no batteries involved.

As either of the preceding two cases, but with batteries also involved.

Electric vehicles may be used as storage capacity for the grid.  When
they're on charge (usually at night) they may supply power to the
grid to cope with brief increases in demand (people putting the
kettle on during TV adverts).  I don't know if any current systems
do so, but it would be possible for the car to provide household
electricity for a while during a power outage.

I've probably missed something.  Your tagging either needs to
cover less cases or more.

--
Paul

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Thank you Lukas for answers

Le sam. 14 nov. 2020 à 17:56, Lukas Richert  a écrit :

> Hi François,
>
> the combination of electricity:grid=yes with either electricity:origin=*
> or electricity:grid:origin=* would point to the origin being only about
> financial flows as advertised on-the-ground.
>
Agree with that.
electricity:grid:origin isn't part of the proposal, will we have to approve
it?

> For the purpose of filtering out amenities, e.g. charging stations, that
> only use 'green' electricity it is still useful to tag electricity:origin=*
> or electricity:generator:origin=* in combination with
> electricity:generator=yes.
>
Don't agree with that :)
This filtering won't be accurate at all and will encourage people to think
claimed origin through a power grid is equivalent to certainty of locally
obtained electricity (which isn't)
I'm clearly against any association between a generator device and 'origin'
word. electricity:origin should relate to grid/market only and remain a
claim with no physical reality.

> Alternatively, there would need to be a tagged relation to the specific
> generator and the end users it supplies which would be considerably harder
> to query and many OSM editers seem to find relations confusing. Therefore,
> I think the slight bit of redundancy is useful to explicitly tag this on
> the amenity.
>
Understood, that would enable to check consistency as well.

> Furthermore, the word 'origin' is used, not only to avoid two tags with
> very similar meanings that can be easily distinguished by combination with
> the infrastructure tag
>
I respectfully disagree, they don't have a similar meaning in many
situations.
Merging both in a single key will only be accurate when the claim is
equivalent to local production which isn't necessary: you buy solar energy
and backup with diesel more often than backup with solar.

> , but also since 'electricity:source' would then have a double meaning
> with 'the survey/map/place where the knowledge of the electricity was
> obtained', which is apparently a problem for some other tags using source
> as a keyword.
>
i'm currently thinking about refine generator:* subkeys and it's sure this
discussion will be really inspiring.
Indeed source should be avoided and I keep that in mind.
In power context "source" refers to inputs and as we already have
generator:output, why shouldn't we have generator:input?
generator:input=wind
input:wind=X kW
output:electricity= Y kW

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 17:24, Lukas Richert  wrote:

The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no (i.e.
> electricity:battery=no), where *yes *means the device/grid is always
> connected and it is usually (daily?) used. The term *backup* then means
> that the device is only used when the usual device reaches its capacity or
> fails, so it is not always on/connected.
>

I'm not committing to supporting or opposing this scheme, just bikeshedding.
But it's a BIG bikeshed.

It isn't as simple as your tagging scheme makes out.

A photovoltaic system for a house may charge batteries, which come into
play when there is no sun (it's night or it's too cloudy).  There is no grid
connection at all.

A photovoltaic system for a house may provide electricity when it can,
with the grid providing electricity when the photovoltaic system cannot.
There are no batteries involved.

A photovoltaic system for a house not only provides electricity for the
house, it also feeds electricity into the grid (for which the owner gets
a rebate on the bill) with the grid supplying power when the
photovoltaic system cannot.  There are no batteries involved.

As either of the preceding two cases, but with batteries also involved.

Electric vehicles may be used as storage capacity for the grid.  When
they're on charge (usually at night) they may supply power to the
grid to cope with brief increases in demand (people putting the
kettle on during TV adverts).  I don't know if any current systems
do so, but it would be possible for the car to provide household
electricity for a while during a power outage.

I've probably missed something.  Your tagging either needs to
cover less cases or more.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi Steve,

I've been thinking more about this and I think the subkeys grid, 
generator and battery should cover any conceivable method (for now!) to 
acquire electricity. So a *grid* is any collection of multiple 
generators/batteries/substations/transformers, a *generator* is a device 
that locally produces electricity and a *battery* (either chemical or 
mechanical) is something that locally stores energy for later usage.


The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no (i.e. 
electricity:battery=no), where *yes *means the device/grid is always 
connected and it is usually (daily?) used. The term *backup* then means 
that the device is only used when the usual device reaches its capacity 
or fails, so it is not always on/connected. The type of backup, be it 
UPS or stand-by, and the length of time that it can keep systems running 
could then also be tagged. To specify exactly which devices are kept 
running it might then be useful to have a relation-tagging scheme for 
circuits but I think this would be outside the scope of the electricity 
tag which should only note the presence of the systems in a 
building/amenity. This could then be a flag for e.g. firemen. The term 
*no* would then just mean that the specified building amenity does not 
have a grid/generator/battery. If it's unknown, it should be left untagged.


I think this should completely cover all cases of buildings having 
electricity? and the specific tagging for backup systems could then be 
discussed separately. And if a new method of acquiring electricity is 
introduced (wireless charging?) it could be easily added to the current 
tagging.


Regards,

Lukas

On 12.11.20 02:15, Lukas Richert wrote:
If it's unclear I would just leave electricity:grid untagged as 
there's no way to know if it's yes or no (another advantage of the 
namespace tagging). In some areas, I think one could relatively safely 
assume that if all other houses are connected to the grid, that one 
likely is too. However,  Tagging the presence of a generator is 
definitely easier to see and would be more important for firefighters 
to know (islanding).


Mostly I would probably say that the vast majority of private houses 
probably don't need to be tagged in this detail and it definitely is 
they type of information I've seen advertised at hotels and camp sites 
where one wouldn't have to get all creepy to figure it out.


Also, if I understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_inverter 
correctly, all of the different inverter types you mentioned are, one 
way or another, connected to the grid. That might be another level of 
detail one wants to map, but doesn't need to be worked into 
electrical:grid I think? (I don't own either solar panels or a house 
that they could go on though, so I'm not completely informed on this 
topic!)


Luke


On 12.11.20 01:59, stevea wrote:
That IS what I mean.  However, STILL left unsaid is that short of 
ringing the doorbell and asking the home / business owner "are your 
solar panels grid-tied, battery-feed, directly converted to an 
inverter...?" you don't really know.


How will you tag those buildings?  (I feel a nose sniffing up my, um, 
house).  Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy 
- snoopy.


SteveA


On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:

If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected 
houses that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific 
reason why I think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house 
would then be tagged with:


building=house
electricity=yes
electricity:generator=yes
electricity:grid=yes
electricity:generator:origin=solar
electricity:access=no

By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes 
this specifies that the building is connected to both and both are 
routinely used. In contrast, it would also be possible to tag 
electricity:generator=backup if the generator is only on when the 
grid fails.


Is this what you meant by grid-tie?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi François,

the combination of electricity:grid=yes with either electricity:origin=* 
or electricity:grid:origin=* would point to the origin being only about 
financial flows as advertised on-the-ground.


For the purpose of filtering out amenities, e.g. charging stations, that 
only use 'green' electricity it is still useful to tag 
electricity:origin=* or electricity:generator:origin=* in combination 
with electricity:generator=yes. Alternatively, there would need to be a 
tagged relation to the specific generator and the end users it supplies 
which would be considerably harder to query and many OSM editers seem to 
find relations confusing. Therefore, I think the slight bit of 
redundancy is useful to explicitly tag this on the amenity. Furthermore, 
the word 'origin' is used, not only to avoid two tags with very similar 
meanings that can be easily distinguished by combination with the 
infrastructure tag, but also since 'electricity:source' would then have 
a double meaning with 'the survey/map/place where the knowledge of the 
electricity was obtained', which is apparently a problem for some other 
tags using source as a keyword.


Cheers,

Lukas
On 14.11.20 17:15, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Lukas

Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 00:48, Lukas Richert > a écrit :


electricity:generator:origin

=solar

I didn't get in details what leads to this association between local 
supply with a generator and origin and it's not correct.


Origin is only financial/market flows (in association with according 
communication claiming for environmental benefits). A particular trade 
to pay for a certain kind of electricity production.
When electricity is locally produced, for a given building, it's not 
about origin, it's only about source.
As we already define the source on the generator itself, this would be 
redundant to explicitly define it on the building as well.


"Origin" is a term that should only be related with grid power supply 
as everyone consumes the same electricity but can pay for particular 
origins.


All the best

François

___
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 - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Hi Lukas

Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 00:48, Lukas Richert  a écrit :

> electricity:generator:origin
> 
> =solar
>
I didn't get in details what leads to this association between local supply
with a generator and origin and it's not correct.

Origin is only financial/market flows (in association with according
communication claiming for environmental benefits). A particular trade to
pay for a certain kind of electricity production.
When electricity is locally produced, for a given building, it's not about
origin, it's only about source.
As we already define the source on the generator itself, this would be
redundant to explicitly define it on the building as well.

"Origin" is a term that should only be related with grid power supply as
everyone consumes the same electricity but can pay for particular origins.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

If it's unclear I would just leave electricity:grid untagged as there's 
no way to know if it's yes or no (another advantage of the namespace 
tagging). In some areas, I think one could relatively safely assume that 
if all other houses are connected to the grid, that one likely is too. 
However,  Tagging the presence of a generator is definitely easier to 
see and would be more important for firefighters to know (islanding).


Mostly I would probably say that the vast majority of private houses 
probably don't need to be tagged in this detail and it definitely is 
they type of information I've seen advertised at hotels and camp sites 
where one wouldn't have to get all creepy to figure it out.


Also, if I understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_inverter 
correctly, all of the different inverter types you mentioned are, one 
way or another, connected to the grid. That might be another level of 
detail one wants to map, but doesn't need to be worked into 
electrical:grid I think? (I don't own either solar panels or a house 
that they could go on though, so I'm not completely informed on this topic!)


Luke


On 12.11.20 01:59, stevea wrote:

That IS what I mean.  However, STILL left unsaid is that short of ringing the doorbell 
and asking the home / business owner "are your solar panels grid-tied, battery-feed, 
directly converted to an inverter...?" you don't really know.

How will you tag those buildings?  (I feel a nose sniffing up my, um, house).  
Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy - snoopy.

SteveA


On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:

If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses that 
I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific reason why I think 
namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house would then be tagged with:

building=house
electricity=yes
electricity:generator=yes
electricity:grid=yes
electricity:generator:origin=solar
electricity:access=no

By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely used. 
In contrast, it would also be possible to tag electricity:generator=backup if 
the generator is only on when the grid fails.

Is this what you meant by grid-tie?

Regards, Luke


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[stevea]

That IS what I mean.  However, STILL left unsaid is that short of ringing the 
doorbell and asking the home / business owner "are your solar panels grid-tied, 
battery-feed, directly converted to an inverter...?" you don't really know.

How will you tag those buildings?  (I feel a nose sniffing up my, um, house).  
Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy - snoopy.

SteveA

> On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert  wrote:
> 
> If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses 
> that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific reason why I 
> think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house would then be tagged 
> with:
> 
> building=house
> electricity=yes
> electricity:generator=yes
> electricity:grid=yes
> electricity:generator:origin=solar
> electricity:access=no
> 
> By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
> specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely used. 
> In contrast, it would also be possible to tag electricity:generator=backup if 
> the generator is only on when the grid fails.
> 
> Is this what you meant by grid-tie?
> 
> Regards, Luke


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected 
houses that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific 
reason why I think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house 
would then be tagged with:


building =house 


electricity =yes
electricity:generator 
=yes

electricity:grid =yes
electricity:generator:origin 
=solar

electricity:access =no

By tagging both electricity:grid=yes and electricity:generator=yes this 
specifies that the building is connected to both and both are routinely 
used. In contrast, it would also be possible to tag 
electricity:generator=backup if the generator is only on when the grid 
fails.


Is this what you meant by grid-tie?

Regards, Luke

On 11.11.20 21:49, stevea wrote:

I hope this doesn't throw too much additional confusion into electricity:grid, but in many parts of 
the world (including where I am, California) a frequent method for connecting solar panels to both 
one's house / commercial building and the grid is to do what is known as "grid-tie," 
sometimes called "net metering."

Grid-tie means that during sunshine, the solar panels generate and "spin the electric meter 
backwards" (creating a credit to the customer with the electric company) and at night, when electricity 
use / loads create a debit (by drawing power directly from the grid / electric company), the meter 
"spins forward" as usual during power use.  Of course, the idea is that generation and load balance 
each other out during a billing cycle and this "net metering" nets out to about zero, so the 
customer has a near-zero bill.

That is prevalent enough in the world that if OSM is going to design a tag for electricity:grid, it 
really needs a syntactic accommodation for "grid_tie" or "net_metering" (which 
are essentially the same).  Especially as I'm not sure if this would go under electricity or 
electricity:source (which introduce at the same time), I haven't any specific suggestion on a key, 
tag or namespace, but I think it important to mention what I haven't seen in this discussion.

SteveA
___
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 - electricity=*

[stevea]

I hope this doesn't throw too much additional confusion into electricity:grid, 
but in many parts of the world (including where I am, California) a frequent 
method for connecting solar panels to both one's house / commercial building 
and the grid is to do what is known as "grid-tie," sometimes called "net 
metering."

Grid-tie means that during sunshine, the solar panels generate and "spin the 
electric meter backwards" (creating a credit to the customer with the electric 
company) and at night, when electricity use / loads create a debit (by drawing 
power directly from the grid / electric company), the meter "spins forward" as 
usual during power use.  Of course, the idea is that generation and load 
balance each other out during a billing cycle and this "net metering" nets out 
to about zero, so the customer has a near-zero bill.

That is prevalent enough in the world that if OSM is going to design a tag for 
electricity:grid, it really needs a syntactic accommodation for "grid_tie" or 
"net_metering" (which are essentially the same).  Especially as I'm not sure if 
this would go under electricity or electricity:source (which introduce at the 
same time), I haven't any specific suggestion on a key, tag or namespace, but I 
think it important to mention what I haven't seen in this discussion.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

The tagging from the original proposal has now changed significantly in 
the past weeks and, I think, has gotten more robust and modular. It has, 
however, then lost backwards compatability although the tag was not used 
often and it should be straightforward to migrate the tags to the new 
scheme. I'd be happy to hear more feedback on the proposal as it 
currently stands. Otherwise, if discussion concludes this week I would 
then move on to voting next week.


Cheers, Lukas

On 05/11/2020 15:32, Lukas Richert wrote:


I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace 
based tagging of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and 
clearer to tag backup generators and grid-connected houses with solar 
panels etc IMO. Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag 
electricity:grid=yes and electricity=no in the case of grid connected 
houses experiencing a long-term power outage during a natural disaster?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

Regards, Lukas

On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert wrote:


I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would 
allow for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.


The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing 
electricity=none and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would 
be relatively straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem 
with people adding major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. 
Especially power_supply is frustrating. )


What do others think about the tag options

electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
electricity=yes
electricity=no

[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
instead of


electricity=grid
electricity=generator
electricity=yes
electricity=no

Cheers Lukas


On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert > wrote:


Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are
usually diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a
loss of detail, but the tagging would still be correct. I'm
hesitant to use *offgrid* as a building that has, for example, a
grid connection with solar panels on the roof would then be
tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.

However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is
it easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it
is connected to a generator? And, would it be necessary to
differentiate between local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no
substations, transfromers, etc.) and national grids? Perhaps
then a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national,
local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?

A further suggestion was to change the tagging
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less
ambiguous for tagging amenities or buildings that get
electricity from both sources and would then be more consistent
with tagging such as *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when,
e.g. a building has a backup diesel generator but is connected
to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with
the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this
already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*

Here is the link to that suggestion I made 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values 
 and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources 



The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these 
potential issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the 
goal is just to implement someone else's standard then we can't use 
the wisdom of the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm 
not too fussed about making this match what another project is 
using, instead we should aim to have the best tags and documentation 
as the outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different, 
other projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community 
accepted schema.


___
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 - electricity=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 6, 2020, 01:03 by elga...@agol.dk:

> Joseph Eisenberg:
>
>> Generally OpenStreetMap data is not updated frequently enough by mappers and 
>> database users for us to map temporary states (e.g. anything which lasts 
>> less than 6 months). Many database users will download a data extract for 
>> offline use and only update this every 3 months or so - see Maps.me for 
>> example, and perhaps facebook's  use of OpenStreetMap data.
>>
>
>
> I agree.
> But there are some interesting cases around that 6 month range.
>
> For example we now have access:covid19
>
>
> Another example is road work on motorways. That can easily take 6 month to a 
> year. First they do one side and have both directions share the lanes of what 
> was earlier one direction. Then they do the other side.
>
> Sometimes mappers change the speed limit to e.g. 60 km/h, but usually when 
> the work is finally done, it takes a long time for someone to put it back at 
> 130.
>
> It would be useful to be able to tag a temporary speed limit with an 
> estimated expiry date. And maybe an estimated start date for offline maps.
>
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (2018 May 22-2018 Oct 7)
maxspeed:conditional=60 @ (2021 May 22-2021 Oct 7)

This will self-terminate even if nobody will remember to remove tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Joseph Eisenberg:
 > Re: "Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag electricity:grid=yes and 
electricity=no in the case of grid connected houses experiencing a long-term power 
outage during a natural disaster?"


Generally OpenStreetMap data is not updated frequently enough by mappers and database 
users for us to map temporary states (e.g. anything which lasts less than 6 months). 
Many database users will download a data extract for offline use and only update this 
every 3 months or so - see Maps.me for example, and perhaps facebook's  use of 
OpenStreetMap data.



I agree.
But there are some interesting cases around that 6 month range.

For example we now have access:covid19


Another example is road work on motorways. That can easily take 6 month to a year. 
First they do one side and have both directions share the lanes of what was earlier 
one direction. Then they do the other side.


Sometimes mappers change the speed limit to e.g. 60 km/h, but usually when the work 
is finally done, it takes a long time for someone to put it back at 130.


It would be useful to be able to tag a temporary speed limit with an estimated expiry 
date. And maybe an estimated start date for offline maps.



And we could do the same for natural disasters.


And most objects in OpenStreetMap are currently only checked and updated once every 
few years.


Perhaps someday the community of mappers will be vibrant enough that we could imagine 
updating tags every month or every week, but at this point such a situation is very 
far away. So for now we should encourage mappers to focus on permanent or 
semi-permanent characteristics which are unlikely to change in the next few months.


-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:36 AM Lukas Richert > wrote:


I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace based 
tagging
of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and clearer to tag 
backup
generators and grid-connected houses with solar panels etc IMO. Perhaps it 
would
also be possible to then tag electricity:grid=yes and electricity=no in the 
case
of grid connected houses experiencing a long-term power outage during a 
natural
disaster?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity


Regards, Lukas

On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert wrote:


I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow for
off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.

The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated
or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none and
electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively 
straightforward?
(This is unfortunately the problem with people adding major
undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially power_supply is
frustrating. )

What do others think about the tag options

electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
electricity=yes
electricity=no

[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] instead of

electricity=grid
electricity=generator
electricity=yes
electricity=no

Cheers Lukas


On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert mailto:lrich...@posteo.de>> wrote:

Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually
diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, 
but
the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a
building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on 
the
roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.

However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it 
easier
to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to a
generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local 
grids
(i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and national
grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e. 
network=national,
local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?

A further suggestion was to change the tagging
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for
tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources 
and
would then be more consistent with tagging such as
*electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup
diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Le jeu. 5 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> Perhaps someday the community of mappers will be vibrant enough that we
> could imagine updating tags every month or every week, but at this point
> such a situation is very far away. So for now we should encourage mappers
> to focus on permanent or semi-permanent characteristics which are unlikely
> to change in the next few months.
>

More and more often we find up to date official public data suitable to
complete osm.
Recently in France we had terrible floods in three southern valleys and osm
community was the first (and still the only) source of data for qualified
destroyed houses, football fields and power substations.

Consider this discussion on Talk
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#Required_top-level_tagging

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Re: "Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag electricity:grid=yes
and electricity=no in the case of grid connected houses experiencing a
long-term power outage during a natural disaster?"

Generally OpenStreetMap data is not updated frequently enough by mappers
and database users for us to map temporary states (e.g. anything which
lasts less than 6 months). Many database users will download a data extract
for offline use and only update this every 3 months or so - see Maps.me for
example, and perhaps facebook's  use of OpenStreetMap data.

And most objects in OpenStreetMap are currently only checked and updated
once every few years.

Perhaps someday the community of mappers will be vibrant enough that we
could imagine updating tags every month or every week, but at this point
such a situation is very far away. So for now we should encourage mappers
to focus on permanent or semi-permanent characteristics which are unlikely
to change in the next few months.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:36 AM Lukas Richert  wrote:

> I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace based
> tagging of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and clearer to
> tag backup generators and grid-connected houses with solar panels etc IMO.
> Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag electricity:grid=yes and
> electricity=no in the case of grid connected houses experiencing a
> long-term power outage during a natural disaster?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> Regards, Lukas
> On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert wrote:
>
> I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and
> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow
> for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.
>
> The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with
> automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none
> and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively
> straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with people adding
> major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially power_supply
> is frustrating. )
>
> What do others think about the tag options
>
> electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
> electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
> electricity=yes
> electricity=no
>
> [electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] instead
> of
>
> electricity=grid
> electricity=generator
> electricity=yes
> electricity=no
>
> Cheers Lukas
>
>
> On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually
>> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, but
>> the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a
>> building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on the
>> roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
>> *electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.
>>
>> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it
>> easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to
>> a generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local
>> grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and
>> national grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e.
>> network=national, local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are
>> mapped?
>>
>> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to
>> *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
>> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for
>> tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources and
>> would then be more consistent with tagging such as
>> *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup
>> diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then
>> not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although
>> this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
>> probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*
>>
> Here is the link to that suggestion I made
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values
>  and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources
>
> The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential
> issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to
> implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the
> community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about
> making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to
> have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal
> process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can
> migrate to the OSM community accepted schema.
>
> 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

I have now switched over the tagging and examples to the namespace based 
tagging of grid and generator. Overall, this makes it easier and clearer 
to tag backup generators and grid-connected houses with solar panels etc 
IMO. Perhaps it would also be possible to then tag electricity:grid=yes 
and electricity=no in the case of grid connected houses experiencing a 
long-term power outage during a natural disaster?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

Regards, Lukas

On 03/11/2020 22:07, Lukas Richert wrote:


I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow 
for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.


The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing 
electricity=none and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be 
relatively straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with 
people adding major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. 
Especially power_supply is frustrating. )


What do others think about the tag options

electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
electricity=yes
electricity=no

[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
instead of


electricity=grid
electricity=generator
electricity=yes
electricity=no

Cheers Lukas


On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert > wrote:


Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are
usually diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a
loss of detail, but the tagging would still be correct. I'm
hesitant to use *offgrid* as a building that has, for example, a
grid connection with solar panels on the roof would then be
tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.

However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is
it easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is
connected to a generator? And, would it be necessary to
differentiate between local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no
substations, transfromers, etc.) and national grids? Perhaps then
a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national, local,
regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?

A further suggestion was to change the tagging
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less
ambiguous for tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity
from both sources and would then be more consistent with tagging
such as *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a
building has a backup diesel generator but is connected to the
grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with the use
by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this already has the
inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should probably be
changed directly to *electricity=no.*

Here is the link to that suggestion I made 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values 
 and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources 



The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these 
potential issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the 
goal is just to implement someone else's standard then we can't use 
the wisdom of the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm 
not too fussed about making this match what another project is using, 
instead we should aim to have the best tags and documentation as the 
outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different, other 
projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community 
accepted schema.


___
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 - electricity=*

[Robert Delmenico]

I like the new options.

In Australia it would be beneficial to note which addresses don't have
power, rather than those that do so this would work well.

For remote communities in Australia, the off grid option would be good.

Many homes also have solar panels connected and this would be great for
firefighters as solar panels provide an electrocution risk in a house for
situation.

Rob

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, 8:10 am Lukas Richert,  wrote:

> I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and
> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow
> for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.
>
> The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with
> automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none
> and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively
> straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with people adding
> major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially power_supply
> is frustrating. )
>
> What do others think about the tag options
>
> electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
> electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
> electricity=yes
> electricity=no
>
> [electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] instead
> of
>
> electricity=grid
> electricity=generator
> electricity=yes
> electricity=no
>
> Cheers Lukas
>
>
> On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually
>> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, but
>> the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a
>> building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on the
>> roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
>> *electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.
>>
>> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it
>> easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to
>> a generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local
>> grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and
>> national grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e.
>> network=national, local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are
>> mapped?
>>
>> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to
>> *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
>> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for
>> tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources and
>> would then be more consistent with tagging such as
>> *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup
>> diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then
>> not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although
>> this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
>> probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*
>>
> Here is the link to that suggestion I made
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values
>  and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources
>
> The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential
> issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to
> implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the
> community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about
> making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to
> have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal
> process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can
> migrate to the OSM community accepted schema.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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 - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

I also think the *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup* tags are clearer and would allow 
for off-grid buildings to be tagged more distinctly.


The electricity tag isn't used a lot yet. I have no experience with 
automated or semi-automated edits, but perhaps changing electricity=none 
and electricity=grid to electricity:grid=yes would be relatively 
straightforward? (This is unfortunately the problem with people adding 
major undiscussed/proposed tags to the main wiki. Especially 
power_supply is frustrating. )


What do others think about the tag options

   electricity:grid=yes/no/backup
   electricity:generator=yes/no/backup
   electricity=yes
   electricity=no

[electricity=yes would be used when grid or generator is unknown] 
instead of


   electricity=grid
   electricity=generator
   electricity=yes
   electricity=no

Cheers Lukas


On 03/11/2020 21:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert > wrote:


Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are
usually diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a
loss of detail, but the tagging would still be correct. I'm
hesitant to use *offgrid* as a building that has, for example, a
grid connection with solar panels on the roof would then be tagged
as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.

However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is
it easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is
connected to a generator? And, would it be necessary to
differentiate between local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no
substations, transfromers, etc.) and national grids? Perhaps then
a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national, local,
regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?

A further suggestion was to change the tagging
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less
ambiguous for tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity
from both sources and would then be more consistent with tagging
such as *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a
building has a backup diesel generator but is connected to the
grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with the use
by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this already has the
inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should probably be
changed directly to *electricity=no.*

Here is the link to that suggestion I made 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources


The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential 
issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just 
to implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of 
the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed 
about making this match what another project is using, instead we 
should aim to have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of 
this proposal process. Then if that's different, other projects 
closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community accepted schema.


___
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 - electricity=*

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 00:13, Lukas Richert  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually
> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, but
> the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as a
> building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on the
> roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of
> *electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.
>
> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it easier
> to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected to a
> generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between local grids
> (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) and national
> grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e. network=national,
> local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are mapped?
>
> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to
> *electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or
> *electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for
> tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources and
> would then be more consistent with tagging such as
> *electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup
> diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then
> not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although
> this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should
> probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*
>
Here is the link to that suggestion I made
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values
 and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources

The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential
issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to
implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the
community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about
making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to
have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal
process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can
migrate to the OSM community accepted schema.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Note in some regions where blackout are often happening it
is quite typical to have both grid connection and backup 
generator.

Is it also typical in hospitals, some factories and other places
where power loss would be especially problematic (what includes
also for example dams, even ones with their own hydro-power generators).

Nov 3, 2020, 14:08 by lrich...@posteo.de:

>
> Hi,
>
>
> While the original proposal did specify that generators are  usually 
> diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a  loss of detail, 
> but the tagging would still be correct. I'm  hesitant to use > offgrid>  
> as a building that has, for  example, a grid connection with solar panels 
> on the roof would  then be tagged as > electricity=grid;offgrid>  instead 
> of > electricity=grid;generator> .  The former is illogical. 
>
>
> However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is  it 
> easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is  connected 
> to a generator? And, would it be necessary to  differentiate between 
> local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no  substations, transfromers, etc.) 
> and national grids? Perhaps then  a network tag would be useful, i.e. 
> network=national, local,  regional similar to the way cycle networks are 
> mapped?
>
>
> A further suggestion was to change the tagging to>  > 
> electricity:grid=yes/no/backup>  and/or > 
> electricity:generator=yes/no/backup> . This might be  less ambiguous for 
> tagging amenities or buildings that get  electricity from both sources 
> and would then be more consistent  with tagging such as > 
> electricity:generator:origin=diesel>  when, e.g. a building has a backup 
> diesel generator but is  connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would 
> then not be  consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project,  
> although this already has the inconsistent > electricity=none>  tag which 
> should probably be changed directly to > electricity=no.>  
>
>
> Cheers, Lukas
>
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2020 07:14, Dolly  Andriatsiferana wrote:
>
>> Hi all, 
>>
>> Thanks a lot Lukas for reworking this proposal.
>>
>> I like Joseph's idea of >> electricity=grid/offgrid/yes/no>>  if  
>> you're introducing >> electricity:origin=>> *. 
>> I'd suggest dropping the generator value as it brings  confusion and 
>> can be difficult to verify. Originally  electricity=generator seemed 
>> to be intended for diesel  devices, but I think we should use 
>> something like  electricity:origin=diesel for it instead.
>>
>> @Volker, I understand the tag might be less relevant in  developed 
>> countries where it is normal to have electricity.  But electricity 
>> availability is an important information in  many developing 
>> countries (like mine) where most of the  population is not connected 
>> to the electricity grid. It would  be useful for health facilities 
>> and accommodation buildings...  - See Healthsites' data model at >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project>>  
>> where the tag is used.
>>
>> Good job, Lukas!
>>
>> -->>  
>> Dolly Andriatsiferana
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:11 AM  Lukas Richert <>> 
>> lrich...@posteo.de>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And, final email, I reworked the proposal page to include  
>>> tagged examples and explained some implicit defintions in  more 
>>> detail.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/10/2020 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:
>>>

 Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the
 first time, I'll go back to RFC status for now. (Ithought 
 the threads were sorted by subject title of theemail and 
 didnt check online if it was actually visible.)


 --


 The original message: 



 Hello all, 
  
  after the comments on the confusing nature of the word
 'source' in my original proposal of'electricity:source', I 
 have now changed the name to'electricity:origin' as 
 suggested on the discussionpage. Furthermore, I would like 
 to revive and extend theproposal of the key 'electricity' 
 as this previouslyconflicted with parts of the 
 electricity:source proposaland was not consistent. 
  
  Both proposal pages: 
  
  [1]  
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity  
  
  [2]  
 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi,

While the original proposal did specify that generators are usually 
diesel, broadening the definition would only lead to a loss of detail, 
but the tagging would still be correct. I'm hesitant to use *offgrid* as 
a building that has, for example, a grid connection with solar panels on 
the roof would then be tagged as *electricity=grid;offgrid* instead of 
*electricity=grid;generator*. The former is illogical.


However, I don't have any experience in developing countries: is it 
easier to verify if something is off-grid compared to if it is connected 
to a generator? And, would it be necessary to differentiate between 
local grids (i.e. 2-3 generators, no substations, transfromers, etc.) 
and national grids? Perhaps then a network tag would be useful, i.e. 
network=national, local, regional similar to the way cycle networks are 
mapped?


A further suggestion was to change the tagging 
to***electricity:grid=yes/no/backup* and/or 
*electricity:generator=yes/no/backup*. This might be less ambiguous for 
tagging amenities or buildings that get electricity from both sources 
and would then be more consistent with tagging such as 
*electricity:generator:origin=diesel* when, e.g. a building has a backup 
diesel generator but is connected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would 
then not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, 
although this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which 
should probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.*


Cheers, Lukas


On 03/11/2020 07:14, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks a lot Lukas for reworking this proposal.

I like Joseph's idea of *electricity=grid/offgrid/yes/no* if you're 
introducing *electricity:origin=**.
I'd suggest dropping the generator value as it brings confusion and 
can be difficult to verify. Originally electricity=generator seemed to 
be intended for diesel devices, but I think we should use something 
like electricity:origin=diesel for it instead.


@Volker, I understand the tag might be less relevant in developed 
countries where it is normal to have electricity. But electricity 
availability is an important information in many developing countries 
(like mine) where most of the population is not connected to the 
electricity grid. It would be useful for health facilities 
and accommodation buildings... - See Healthsites' data model at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project 
 
where the tag is used.


Good job, Lukas!

--
Dolly Andriatsiferana


On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:11 AM Lukas Richert > wrote:


And, final email, I reworked the proposal page to include tagged
examples and explained some implicit defintions in more detail.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity


Cheers


On 30/10/2020 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:


Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first
time, I'll go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads
were sorted by subject title of the email and didnt check online
if it was actually visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source'
in my original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now
changed the name to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the
discussion page. Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend
the proposal of the key 'electricity' as this previously
conflicted with parts of the electricity:source proposal and was
not consistent.

Both proposal pages:

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity


[2]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source




The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or
amenities that have electricity. The rationale is described in
more detail at [1]. Tags such as access, fee, schedule and origin
can then narrow down the availability to the public and the
question of financial or direct origin of the electricity.

This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used
to describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The
values for that tag are still currently under discussion.

I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the
facilities and features that relate to the generation and
distribution of electrical power and should not be used to map
the consumers of electricity.


I am eager to hear 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Dolly Andriatsiferana]

Hi all,

Thanks a lot Lukas for reworking this proposal.

I like Joseph's idea of *electricity=grid/offgrid/yes/no* if you're
introducing *electricity:origin=**.
I'd suggest dropping the generator value as it brings confusion and can be
difficult to verify. Originally electricity=generator seemed to be intended
for diesel devices, but I think we should use something like
electricity:origin=diesel for it instead.

@Volker, I understand the tag might be less relevant in developed countries
where it is normal to have electricity. But electricity availability is an
important information in many developing countries (like mine) where most
of the population is not connected to the electricity grid. It would be
useful for health facilities and accommodation buildings... - See
Healthsites' data model at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project
where the tag is used.

Good job, Lukas!

--
Dolly Andriatsiferana

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:11 AM Lukas Richert  wrote:

> And, final email, I reworked the proposal page to include tagged examples
> and explained some implicit defintions in more detail.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On 30/10/2020 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:
>
> Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll go
> back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by subject
> title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually visible. )
>
>
> --
>
> The original message:
>
> Hello all,
>
> after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my
> original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name to
> 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. Furthermore, I
> would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 'electricity' as
> this previously conflicted with parts of the electricity:source proposal
> and was not consistent.
>
> Both proposal pages:
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source
>
> The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that
> have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags
> such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the
> availability to the public and the question of financial or direct origin
> of the electricity.
>
> This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to
> describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for that
> tag are still currently under discussion.
>
> I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the
> facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution of
> electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of electricity.
>
>
> I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
>
> ---
>
> Also, perhaps relevant: both the  power_supply
>  and socket
>   keys describe the same
> feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner that
> electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for power_supply is
> relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is better thought out and
> also currently more used. I would be in favor of deprecating power_supply
> and separating the two meanings it currently has into electricity=* and
> socket:*=#.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lukas
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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 - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

And, final email, I reworked the proposal page to include tagged 
examples and explained some implicit defintions in more detail.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

Cheers


On 30/10/2020 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:


Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, 
I'll go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted 
by subject title of the email and didnt check online if it was 
actually visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source 



The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities 
that have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at 
[1]. Tags such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow 
down the availability to the public and the question of financial or 
direct origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.



I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
---

Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply 
 and socket 
  keys describe the 
same feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the 
manner that electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal 
for power_supply is relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag 
is better thought out and also currently more used. I would be in 
favor of deprecating power_supply and separating the two meanings it 
currently has into electricity=* and socket:*=#.


Regards,

Lukas


___
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 - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi Jan,

I would refrain from overwriting the power_supply tags. Firstly, 
speaking as  a native speaker, it is not an intuitive name. The first 
few times I saw this I immedialtey thought it wasn't relevant to what I 
was searching for and didn't even read the wiki. A power supply 
 is a device that supplies 
electric at a specific voltage, current etc. and is typically built into 
computers, used in labs etc. It does not specify the existence of 
electricity. (If anything, the word they meant to use is probably 
'electrical outlet'.)


Furthermore, the tagging is highly inconsistent. The way it is described 
on the wiki page has nothing to do with the way it is described on the 
camp_site page. I think the data would be better and more consistent if 
power_supply is deprecated and slowly replaced by either socket:* or 
electricity, depending on the meaning.


I think overwriting the meaning of a used tag is a dangerous method and 
taggers that are already using it wouldn't necessarily notice the change 
in definition. If the tag was deprecated, it would be obvious which 
definition the tagger was using instead of introducing a further 
variable into an already badly documented tag. Also, power_supply:socket 
would again be a duplication of the already existing, well-thought-out 
socket tag.


Cheers, Lukas


On 30/10/2020 15:17, Jan Michel wrote:

Hi,

I don't see a need to introduce new 'electricity:XY' keys.
The current definition of 'electricity' is to mark how an
amenity or building is supplied with energy. There is no intention
to have this key mark things like access for other people to this
energy source.
Access to electricity is tagged using 'power_supply' - and all your 
ideas would fit perfectly into the already existing

'power_supply' key. It seems to be the ideal occassion to revisit
this tag and bring it to a good shape.

Here's what I would do:

- There is no formal proposal for power_supply yet, so we should write 
one


- The option to have socket types as values is listed in the Wiki, but 
hardly ever used (93% of uses are plain yes/no), so this should be 
dropped as its mixing different things into one tag.


- Propose the new subtags according to your ideas, i.e.
power_supply -> adjust values to be yes/no/grid/generator ...
power_supply:socket -> values and meaning as in Key:socket
power_supply:source -> values and meaning as described for 
power:source and generator:source

power_supply:fee -> already in use!
power_supply:access -> like in common tags like toilets:access


Jan


On 30.10.20 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:
Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, 
I'll go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were 
sorted by subject title of the email and didnt check online if it was 
actually visible. )


-- 



The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the 
name to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the 
key 'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source 



The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities 
that have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at 
[1]. Tags such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow 
down the availability to the public and the question of financial or 
direct origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values 
for that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and 
distribution of electrical power and should not be used to map the 
consumers of electricity.



I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
--- 



Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply 
 and socket 
 keys describe the 
same feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the 
manner that electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal 
for power_supply is relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag 
is better thought out and also currently more used. I would be in 
favor of deprecating power_supply 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Hi Volker,

the tag is meant for any buildings or amentities where it would be 
helpful for the public or humanitarian teams to know the availability of 
electricity.


I feel this is a silly argument. In the same way that the existence of 
the tag height=* does not demand that every building needs to be 
precisely measured, this tag is intended for use when it is relevant. 
When it /is/ relevant there should be an agreed upon standard in OSM 
however. Currently, there is no such tag available, even though 
electricity is arguably one of our most used and depended upon resources.


I would say this tag is primarily important in countries where a 
national grid does not exist everywhere and for amenities where the 
electricity provider is not necessarily given, e.g. at campsites or 
charging stations. Another relevant building would be hospitals and 
other services that would be important in emergency situations.


Finally, there is tagging available for e.g. internet connection, waste 
disposal areas, postal delivery amenities etc. Similarly, publically 
consumed electricity should also be taggable. Whiile waste_disposal 
(bins) and postal services (mail boxes) are tagged by location, 
resources available in an area, such as internet access and electricity 
should be tagged on the relevant service provider (i.e. building).


If I have somehow misunderstood your point, then I apologize, but I hope 
this addressed your concerns.


Cheers, Lukas

On 30/10/2020 14:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

I am confused on what the tag electricity= is intended for.

You say in the first of the two proposals:
" The parent key electricity 
 would be used to 
tag the availabilty and source of electricity, i.e. whether a building 
or amenity has electricity. The availability of this electricity to 
the public, either for free or for a fee, would be determined by the 
typical access  and 
fee  tags."


So let's go to the practical side:
My home is an average single family house in an average city in an 
average country in Europe.
As for 99.9% of the buildings in this country it is connected to the 
(national) electricity grid, hence electricity=grid.
But I do not sell electricity to the public, and I do not offer a free 
electricity supply to the public, hence it would be 
electricity:access=private
So we will start a major campaign to add the two tags to 99.9% of the 
buildings in my country? This cannot be done automatically, as there 
are the odd (for the time being) buildings that are autonomous with, 
for example, solar + battery.and other odd arrangements.


I am sure that you have thought of that and the intention is to put 
the electricity= tag only on some categories of buildings in those 
areas of the world where it is normal to be connected to the grid, but 
which?


Going on from there, what about other services like drinking water, 
sewage, surface water drainage, television antennas, Internet 
connection, postal delivery services, garbage collection, and so on?


I have to confess, I only have questions, but no answers.

Volker



On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 13:47, Lukas Richert > wrote:


Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time,
I'll go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were
sorted by subject title of the email and didnt check online if it
was actually visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in
my original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed
the name to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion
page. Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal
of the key 'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts
of the electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.

Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source


The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities
that have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail
at [1]. Tags such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then
narrow down the availability to the public and the question of
financial or direct origin of the electricity.

This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used
to describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The
values for that tag are still currently under discussion.

I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the
facilities and features that relate to the generation and
distribution of 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Jan Michel]

Hi,

I don't see a need to introduce new 'electricity:XY' keys.
The current definition of 'electricity' is to mark how an
amenity or building is supplied with energy. There is no intention
to have this key mark things like access for other people to this
energy source.
Access to electricity is tagged using 'power_supply' - and all your 
ideas would fit perfectly into the already existing

'power_supply' key. It seems to be the ideal occassion to revisit
this tag and bring it to a good shape.

Here's what I would do:

- There is no formal proposal for power_supply yet, so we should write one

- The option to have socket types as values is listed in the Wiki, but 
hardly ever used (93% of uses are plain yes/no), so this should be 
dropped as its mixing different things into one tag.


- Propose the new subtags according to your ideas, i.e.
power_supply -> adjust values to be yes/no/grid/generator ...
power_supply:socket -> values and meaning as in Key:socket
	power_supply:source -> values and meaning as described for power:source 
and generator:source

power_supply:fee -> already in use!
power_supply:access -> like in common tags like toilets:access


Jan 


On 30.10.20 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:
Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll 
go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by 
subject title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually 
visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source 



The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that 
have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags 
such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the 
availability to the public and the question of financial or direct 
origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.



I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
---

Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply 
 and socket 
 keys describe the same 
feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner 
that electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for 
power_supply is relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is 
better thought out and also currently more used. I would be in favor of 
deprecating power_supply and separating the two meanings it currently 
has into electricity=* and socket:*=#.


Regards,

Lukas


___
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 - electricity=*

[Volker Schmidt]

I am confused on what the tag electricity= is intended for.

You say in the first of the two proposals:
" The parent key electricity
 would be used to tag
the availabilty and source of electricity, i.e. whether a building or
amenity has electricity. The availability of this electricity to the
public, either for free or for a fee, would be determined by the typical
access  and fee
 tags."

So let's go to the practical side:
My home is an average single family house in an average city in an average
country in Europe.
As for 99.9% of the buildings in this country it is connected to the
(national) electricity grid, hence electricity=grid.
But I do not sell electricity to the public, and I do not offer a free
electricity supply to the public, hence it would be
electricity:access=private
So we will start a major campaign to add the two tags to 99.9% of the
buildings in my country? This cannot be done automatically, as there are
the odd (for the time being) buildings that are autonomous with, for
example, solar + battery.and other odd arrangements.

I am sure that you have thought of that and the intention is to put the
electricity= tag only on some categories of buildings in those areas of the
world where it is normal to be connected to the grid, but which?

Going on from there, what about other services like drinking water, sewage,
surface water drainage, television antennas, Internet connection, postal
delivery services, garbage collection, and so on?

I have to confess, I only have questions, but no answers.

Volker



On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 13:47, Lukas Richert  wrote:

> Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll go
> back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by subject
> title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually visible. )
>
>
> --
>
> The original message:
>
> Hello all,
>
> after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my
> original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name to
> 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. Furthermore, I
> would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 'electricity' as
> this previously conflicted with parts of the electricity:source proposal
> and was not consistent.
>
> Both proposal pages:
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source
>
> The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that
> have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags
> such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the
> availability to the public and the question of financial or direct origin
> of the electricity.
>
> This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to
> describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for that
> tag are still currently under discussion.
>
> I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the
> facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution of
> electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of electricity.
>
>
> I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
>
> ---
>
> Also, perhaps relevant: both the  power_supply
>  and socket
>   keys describe the same
> feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner that
> electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for power_supply is
> relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is better thought out and
> also currently more used. I would be in favor of deprecating power_supply
> and separating the two meanings it currently has into electricity=* and
> socket:*=#.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lukas
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging