Proposal:Electricity

"electricity"
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Privatemajory, Luke
Tagging:	electricity=yes, no, intermittent
Applies to:	, ,
Definition:	Indicate the electricity source used in a public building or amenity.
Statistics:
Rendered as:	no rendering
Draft started:	2018-09-03
RFC start:	2020-10-15
Vote start:	2021-01-18
Vote end:	2021-02-01

Proposal

No approved tagging exists yet to tag electricity that is available in public buildings or at diverse amenities, such as campsites, charging stations, harbours, etc. This key, along with subkeys, aims to collect information on the availability and access to electricity in a modular way that can be expanded in the future.

It is proposed to redefine electricity from the old proposal. The values of electricity=yes and electricity=no should be used to tag the availability of electricity of any kind, with electricity=intermittent for irregular electricity.

It is proposed to discourage the use of electricity=none from the previous proposal and replace this with electricity=no, which is consistent with tagging as used in the rest of the database.

It is further recommended to deprecate power_supply as it is not defined well and the possible definitions overlap with both electricity and socket.

Finally, it is proposed to create the following sub-keys of electricity:

• electricity:grid=* and electricity:generator=* to describe the infrastructure with which the tagged end-user is connected to electricity.
• electricity:conditional=* using the opening_hours scheme can be used to define when electricity is available if it is not constant.

Access and payment for an electricity source can be tagged using the excisting access and fee keys. If there is ambiguity as to which feature is meant, please use electricity:access=* and electricity:fee=* to specify those restrictions relating solely to electricity availabilty.

The wording of the keys electricity:storage=* and electricity:storage=* is not final and would be adapted to be consistent with the current Proposed_features/Power_storage proposal if the wording there changes. Thus these tags are not part of this proposal, but solely listed for completeness at this time.

Tag transition

The previous electricity draft had already been adopted by some. To somewhat future-proof this proposal and to make it modular enough for meaningful use, it was unfortunately not possible to completely integrate these tags. However, the definitions were kept the same so that a 1:1 transition is possible in most cases. These could likely be semi-automatically edited, but as it is a relatively small amount, I would be in favor of deprecating the previous tagging and waiting for the features to be updated.

• The tag electricity=yes is already correct as-is (8% of cases)
• The tag electricity=none should be replaced by electricity=no (17% of all cases)
• The tag electricity=grid should be replaced by electricity=yes and electricity:grid=yes (68% of all cases)
• The tag electricity=solar should be replaced by electricity=yes and electricity:generator=yes and electricity:generator:input=solar (3% of all cases)
• A further 4% of cases were tagged using non-recommended values.

Overall, the redefinition would lead to approximately 5000 tags being obsolete and recommended for transition. Compared to the number of public buildings, amenities and charging stations where this tag could be useful (likely in the millions), this seems a manageable amount.

Deprecation of power_supply

The key power_supply was never proposed and simply added to the camp_site wiki. The tag power_supply is typically (>75%) used in combination with camp_site. The current definition of power_supply describes two parallel aims: 1. to describe the type of socket that is available and 2. to describe the availability of electricity.

The first definition is already covered by the well-defined and more frequently used socket. This key has the advantage of being able to handle multiple types of sockets and also specifes the number of available sockets.

The second definition is also already implemented by electricity, which this proposal seeks to redefine to be more modular and applicable in a wide range of cases. Furthermore, a power supply is defined as "an electrical device that supplies electric power to an electrical load." This does not capture the meaning of the tag and leads to confusion as evidenced by the multiple definitions provided.

Overall, power_supply has been used 13,000 times. Of these, 70% were with the value 'yes' and 22.5% with the value 'no'. These tags fit the definition of the electricity 'yes' and 'no' tags and could be transitioned to these. The remaining 7.5% of tags specify the socket type and these tags should then be transitioned to the socket type tagging. In contrast, the socket tagging has been used over 50,000 times and is considerably more modular.

Also, 77% of all tags are in combination with tourism=camp_site or caravan_site as these are the pages where power_supply is mentioned. Overall, less than 5% of all camp sites and caravans have been tagged using power_supply. Personally, in past years I had avoided the tag as the definition only mentioned socket types while I was looking to tag electricity.

Thus, compared to the total number of amenities with electricity, I think it is pertinent to deprecate the power_supply tag in favor of two other tags with clearer definitions and a more modular approach.

Rationale

Currently, the electricity tag is mostly used to specify the availability of electricity in hospitals in Africa. Particularly for travelers and tourists, however, it is increasingly important to know which amenities and buildings provide outlets or other charging facilities for smartphones, cars, bikes and other gadgets.

Tagging

The tag would be used on public buildings or amenities.

Topic	Key
Availability	electricity=*
Infrastructure	electricity:grid=* or electricity:generator=* or electricity:storage=*
Schedule	electricity:conditional=*

Availability

Always tag electricity=* when using the any of the electricity=*-subkeys to make it easier for data consumers to find.

Tag	Description
electricity=yes	There is electricity available, either continuously or on a set schedule, see schedule.
electricity=intermittent	There is electricity available intermittently, i.e. irregular or not predictable.
electricity=no	There is no electricity available at all.

Electricity is defined as intermittent if there are numerous unscheduled power outages so that there is a significant probability that it will be unavailable for use. To quantify significant, electricity is determined to be intermittent if "a maximum threshold of 12 [unscheduled] outages in a typical year for SAIFI and 12 hours of [unscheduled] power outage per year" is exceeded . If outages are on a fixed schedule, this should instead be tagged following the guidelines outlined in Proposed_features/electricity#Schedule.

Infrastructure

An electrical grid is typically operated by some public or private company. This ususally includes multiple generators, substations, and transmission lines.

Electric generators encompass any device that converts energy from one primary energy form into a different energy form, including diesel generators, solar arrays, wind turbines, etc.

Energy storage devices are any devices, including mechanical and electrochemical devices, that capture energy produced either via grid or generator at one time for use at a later time. That is, they are secondary energy sources.

Image	Tag	Value	Description
	electricity:grid=*	electricity:grid=yes	Electricity is coming, at least in part, from an electrical distribution grid.
		electricity:grid=no	This amenity is not connected to a grid at all.
	electricity:generator=*	electricity:generator=yes	The available electricity is produced, at least in part, by a nearby generator that is usually in use. The generator itself should be tagged with power=generator.
		electricity:generator=backup	There is a backup generator that is used to mitigate the damages of loss of primary electric power supply and not in daily/often use. The generator itself should be tagged with power=generator.
		electricity:generator=no	No generator is directly connected to the amenity or building.
	electricity:storage=*	electricity:storage=yes	The available electricity is, at least in part, stored in a nearby battery that is usually in use.
		electricity:storage=backup	There is an energy storage system that is only used in case of loss of the primary electric power supply, i.e. not daily or often.
		electricity:storage=no	No energy storage system is directly connected to the amenity or building.

electricity:generator:input

For buildings or amenities connected directly to a generator, the nearby power=generator should also be tagged. The electricity:generator:input=* value should be identical with the generator's generator:source=* value.

See generator:source=* for possible tag values.

See examples below for specific tagging scenarios.

Schedule

• Use conditional tagging electricity:conditional=* if electricity is not always available during the times when the amenity or building is normally available but it is on a fixed schedule. If there is a schedule, conditional restrictions could be used. Use typical opening_hours syntax.

For example, one could use electricity:conditional=yes @ (Mo 6:00-8:00) if electricity is only available from 6:00-8:00 on Mondays.

Similarly, the availability of electricity from specific infrastructure sources can also be tagged. For example, if electricity is only coming from the grid at specific times (e.g. weekdays from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm.) but is always available from a generator:electricity=yes and electricity:grid:conditional=yes @ (Mo-Fr 17:00-22:00) and electricity:generator=yes.

For irregular electricity supply, use electricity=intermittent.

Rendering

This tag is not rendered.

Examples

Image	Tags	Scenario
	amenity=hospital electricity=yes electricity:grid=yes electricity:generator=backup electricity:generator:input=diesel	Hospital typically supplied by a grid with a diesel-powered backup generator.
	amenity=cafe electricity=yes electricity:grid=yes socket:USB-A=4	A cafe has an area that allows people to charge their phones or other electronics.
	tourism=camp_site electricity=yes socket:USB-A=2 socket:nema_5_15=1	A camp site for hikers and bikers with a charging area.

For tagging scheduled power outages, see the example in Proposed_features/electricity#Schedule.

External discussions

• Initial thread on OpenStreetMap Help
• Pre-proposal thread on the Tagging mailing list
• See electricity:origin for the first draft of the proposal. This tag is no longer under proposal however.

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Comments from previous voting rounds

Comments from voting 29-30 October

Voting was started on October 29, 2020. However, the voting was stoppped on October 30th as the RFC email was not in the correct thread and therefore some people did not see it. The proposal returned to RFC state. The following votes are from the short voting window and are here to serve as a basis to address concerns.

• I approve this proposal. while this does not seem immediately useful for my mapping, I can imagine circumstances where this tag could make sense. --Dieterdreist (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. This proposal is well thought out and will be useful going forward. --Rtbk (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Actual origin of energy is basically not surveyable and in typical case it is mix of various sources. Such typical case is not handled or even mentioned. Also, I am willing to bet that ""Here you can fill up with green electricity from 100% hydropower"" is a lie and actual electricity comes at least partially from burning something. The same for mentioned supermarket sign - are they having their own energy network, separated from general grid? Tagging claims about origin source is more workable. raised in discussion, for some reason there are multiple talk pages --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said you would use this tag for every feature which uses electricity. Obviously, when the origin of energy is not clear or mixed, you would not add a specific energy origin tag. There is also the "grid" value which might give indications that it is a mix. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Calling the tagging of green electricity a "lie" seems, at this point, more of a political opinion. At any rate, it is something that is advertised IRL and as already discussed on the electricity:origin page, Guarantees of Origin are used to track the origin of electricity in Europe and I think it highly likely that other countries will develop similar systems. Of course, the individual electrons don't care where they come from! . - Luke (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Claiming to use "green electricity from 100% hydropower" while being connected to general grid is stating something untrue. Guarantees of Origin may ensure/change something, but not fact that grid electricity comes from multiple sources. Presence of this advertisement, maybe also fact that GoO is signed can be tagged somehow, but not in misleading way that claims that used electricity actually comes solely from hydropower, because that is simply untrue. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Thank you to take care of comment about origin. It's globally ok, nevertheless I think definitions should be adapted: origin won't come from or to somewhere, it's only about buying and market. Fanfouer (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As I mentioned on the talk page, electricity=generator currently is used in developing countries when there is electricy provided by a diesel or gasoline generator, since this is the common meaning of "generator" in many dialects of English. I don't think this proprosal is clear enough about how the new tags should be used, and I would prefer something specific like electricity=off_grid as the opposite of electricity=grid. And the new electricity:source tags also have the problem, mentioned by others, that usually the source cannot be determined. I think it should be clearly stated that this tag should only be used when the source can be verified by surveying the location in person. --Jeisenbe (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. While I agree with the intent here and it would be great to have a documented way to map grid/off grid, I think there are enough valid concerns raised on the Discussion page that should be addressed first. --Aharvey (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. This proposal is not distinct. why should i use electricity=grid whe have power=line its even more distinct. You mix with this proposal many things with the "power" tag. It's not realy clear where i should use this tag.--Hufgardm (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the proposal - it has no relation to power=line. It is meant to tag buildings and other amenities that have electricity and, especially, those that provide electricity to the public in the form of electrical outlets/charging stations. These amenities should be kept separate from the power-infrastructure tagging. - Luke (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from voting 1-7 December, 2020

• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Thank you for this very detailed and precise proposal --Gendy54 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Very good job --Renecha (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Nice proposal Fanfouer (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I would have been ok with a tag to document electricity use "in developing and undeveloped countries" like the rationale says. I see that this idea has succumbed to feature creep and is now intended to document when a western city supermarket has switched to a supplier of green energy. Without clear limits, people *will* use this to tag tens of millions of buildings in my country as being connected to the electricity grid. This tag has spun out of control and needs to focus. --Woodpeck (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This proposal seems to have been written mainly for the usage in developing countries. I oppose the proposal for the following reasons:
  • The proposal deprecates electricity=none and replaces it by electricity=no. This change is made just for changing. It brings unnecessary burden on data consumers.
  • The proposal does not discourage from adding sensible defaults in developed countries. Following this proposal, a mapper would add electricity=yes to almost all residential buildings in Germany.
  • The proposal does not keep privacy and privacy regulation in mind. Adding electricity=no to a building where a person lives can be seen as personal information. The absence of electricity can point out political believes of the residents. Those are highly sensitive data according to GDPR and require additional care by data processors. I cannot accept a proposal which can be read as an encouragement to map homes in detail.
  • The definition of electricity:access=private as "only with individual permission" and electricity:access=no as "no access for the general public. For example, at a private residence" looks strange. I expect "private" to fit for most private residences because I assume that most owners do permit their guests to use the power sockets to charge their electronic devices. I might be biased.
  • electricity:grid:origin=* makes no sense if the building is connected to a large grid with diverse sources. There are not green or black electrons. Reneweable electric energy is just marketing and the question who (consumer) pays whom (producer). It cannot be verified properly and, as User:Woodpeck wrote, it is just marketing. Please add this tag to the power=generator and don't duplicate it on all consumers.
  • The "House in Thüringen" example does not reflect current tagging of such buildings in Germany. We map them as a building and the photovoltaic panels as (an) individual power=generator.
  • The proposal aims to be feature-complete. However it does not cover the following cases: In German youth hostels operated by Deutsches Jugendherbergswerk, you must not charge bicycle batteries in your room. How should this be tagged? In addition, how to tag if the power source (renewable vs. any) depends on the status of the customer (for German readers: green power for IC/EC/ICE passengers with a BahnCard).
  • Do you mean adding electricity=yes to a amenity=charging_station serious or is it a joke? --Nakaner (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there has been a significant misunderstanding here - it is not mandatory and also no encouraged to tag electricity=* for every building and amenity in the world. Instead, if any electricity subkeys are used, then it is mandatory to also use tag the parent electricity tag nothing more. Further comments on the discussion page. - Luke (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. per Woodpeck and Nakaner (though I support deprecating duplicate tags). Also, it should be electricity:grid:advertised_origin=* to make clear that it is solely for cases where this claim is signposted Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. While the key is now very well defined and the proposal clearly written, I agree with User:Woodpeck who makes a good point: the electricity=* tag is very useful for the tourism and humanitarian use cases, but seems useless for the hundreds of millions of buildings having electricity in developed countries; so the tag shouldn't be mandatory on "buildings and amenities", and narrowed down to use cases where we won't have a 99.99/0.01% ratio between electricity=yes and other values. I also agree with User:Nakaner remarks about electricity:grid:origin=* (unneeded) and amenity=charging_station (it implies electricity=yes, no need to add it there) --Don-vip (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. i fully support the comments from Woodpeck and Nakaner TheBlackMan (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. i fully support the comments from Woodpeck and Nakaner streckenkundler (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I fully support this proposal, it's well written and covers a wide range of scenarios. It provides consistency for mappers and data consumers. It's gone through a rigorous proposal process which has addressed feedback and improved the tagging scheme. Thanks to the author of the proposal and all those whole worked to review and provide feedback. Addressing the prior no votes here, absolutely this can and should be used to tag tens of millions of buildings as connected to the grid where verifiable on the ground it's something we should as a project strive to complete, in the same way we tag millions of kms of roads as paved surface. There was a time in OSM when there were many assumed defaults that mappers didn't bother to tag, and instead only tagged the exception, but that ship has sailed, mostly due to StreetComplete it's now common to explicitly tag yes/no even when a JOSM mapper might not have bothered with the tag as it was assumed. I think this is a good thing, a mapper assuming most buildings as grid connected and choosing not to map this leaves holes in the data, where it's possible to survey it then we shouldn't discourage explicit mapping even when 99% of the time it can be assumed. If someone wants to survey every household in Germany as grid connected or not, what's wrong with doing that, if you're not interested then ignore the tag, but it's interesting to some people so you shouldn't stop them from mapping it. For privacy is there is specific laws to one country about mapping data collected from the street about houses then yes we should follow the law, but many other countries there is no law in collecting and publishing data about which houses are connected to the grid or which have rooftop solar. If a "building is connected to a large grid with diverse sources" then don't tag electricity:grid:origin=* if it can't be verified. --Aharvey (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Based on Woodpeck and Nakaner. This feature is mostly useless and will clutter the map harshly if not carefully checked. Such kind of underlying infrastructure mapping will cause privacy concern as well. The feature could be useful in developing countries, however it will make map worse if the development is not finished. Most of the examples posted above do not clearly feedback a proper usage of this proposed tag but only introducing complexity.
  • "it is increasingly important to know which amenities and buildings provide outlets or other charging facilities for smartphones, cars, bikes and other gadgets" Privacy concern alert. It is hard to define public or private.
  • "natural disasters can lead to significant power outages" Yes I agree however diesel generators around cell towers built in US are not expecting anyone else to use regardless of you map them or not
  • "green energy", there is no clear definition for this term per Mateusz Konieczny. If people are really in emergency, they will not care if the power is green or not.
  • "gasoline", leaded/unleaded? More confusion are coming --CBRS (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. should be strictly limited to places of general interest, like camp sites, alpine huts and similiar places --Fx99 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As written, this currently has too wide of a scope and reluctantly, as I know how much work has gone into this proposal, I must vote no. Changes are required to ensure that this tag is not used to tag buildings merely because they have electric service. I support adding tagging for the specific use cases of:
  • The amenity of electricity (where a member of the public can access electricity), i.e., is this a good place to charge my phone?
  • The fact that a provider of public electricity is advertising that they are offering green energy

--ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I fully support the comments from Woodpeck and Nakaner User 5359 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I am generally in favor of mapping this property, it can be quite useful in several contexts. I am nonetheless voting no at this point because the proposal does not seem completely thought through (tag transition is not clear and neither is clear why tags would have to be deprecated in order to implement this). From the currently used tags (electricity=*, the documented value "solar" is not present here, and I wonder how electricity=grid relates to electricity:grid (and similar tagging / subtagging duplicates) (if this proposal passed, would it mean we should only use electricity=yes/no/grid/generator? I also do not follow the reasoning to deprecate power_supply=* with its more than 13.000 uses. --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I generally like this idea, but it should be clearly limited to public locations like railway stations, camp sites, huts and other POIs where you may want to use electricity to charge your bike, phone, use a radio and so on. I don't see the point of tagging private buildings. And even tagging shops and public locations in development countries will be problematic, as it will probably get out of date quickly. Also I agree with many of the concerns above. --Jonathan Haas (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This is arguably out of scope in the first place. Second, there are verifiability and privacy issues. I also share the concerns elucidated by CBRS. Duja (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. reason --Skinfaxi (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) i think thus proposal ist far to complicated. And the subject kan change rapitly. Facts are complicated to survey. An example are the spüre rewnewable energy Tags on stores: If the owner take down the sign it does not nessasary mean a change. And the information should be strictly limited till points with public intress.
• I oppose this proposal. -- [This unsigned vote was added at 14:39, 5 December 2020 by 5R-MFT (talk) - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity&oldid=2068784]
• I approve this proposal. --Cg909 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I exchanged emails with one proposal author that it is very difficult to future-proof this. In the 21st century as "the grid" and power technologies rapidly develop in radical ways radically differently across the world, this proposal will need nearly constant updating. I'm not saying it is hopeless, but that no matter how well or how technically it is developed, it will be underdeveloped (as it is now). There are also privacy concerns, as noted. Something LIKE this, with the idea that "I can charge my phone here" or "I can recharge my electric bicycle here" (I would have liked a map of this even 20 years ago!) is a good idea, but this won't work as written: the tag transition is underdeveloped and the technologies, possibilities, scenarios are not nearly as widely expounded as they must be. Call this a draft, a try, a "swing and a miss." "Mapping electricity" is a highly complex topic and to be mapped properly in OSM this needs a much fuller proposal that is (or approaches) being fully comprehensive. This isn't it. Stevea (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from voting December 31, 2020 to January 14, 2021

• I approve this proposal. --Adiatmad (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your detail proposal.
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. electricity:grid:origin=hydro is a bad name, in my opinion it should be electricity:advertised_origin=hydro -Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mateusz, you seem to have a very vehement opinion on this topic. I have already separated out the meanings of input and origin as you wished. Guarantess of origin are explicitly financial products and advertised_origin is IMO needlessly long since this is explained in the definiton of the tag. I'm sorry we can't seem to find a consensus here. - Luke (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"electricity:grid:origin" is 23 characters long. "electricity:advertised_origin" is 29 characters long and in my opinion clearly describes its purpose and clearly restricts and meaning to what is verifiable by mapper that is not performing legal analysis. I am OK with tagging of presence of sign advertising this (still not supporting it), but against anything that even suggests that legal contracts about energy delivery are taggable. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Solid proposal thanks for working on it. --Aharvey (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I appreciate the effort and patience put on this. Now this is a very good proposal. --Privatemajory (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Thank you for patiently working through this proposal. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I share the concerns of Mateusz Konieczny above, but more importantly I still disagree with calling solar panels a "generator" and requiring 2 extra tags to map when a remote building in a developing country is powered by a diesel/gas generator. Right now electricity=generator is easy to use and makes sense based on the standard meaning of "generator" in English as a gas/diesel powered generator. Now to tag this we would have to tag electricity=intermittent + electricity:generator=yes + electricity:generator:input=diesel, I think? But also it is unclear when we should use electricity=intermittent. When I lived in Sentani, in Indonesia, the power would go out for a couple hours, every other day, at random times, but it was available for at least 20 hours a day. Is that electricity=intermittent or electricity=yes? What if there is only electricity for 3 hours every evening on a regular schedule? Is that electricity=intermittent or electricity=no or electricity=yes? It seems like this proposal is only designed for mapping developed countries and has not considered other situations. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, neither a general definiton nor the OSM definiton of generator is diesel-only. Both wind, diesel, solar can power generators and this is consistent with the power=generator tagging. As to intermittent, this should simply signify that electricity availabilty is not guaranteed and schedule specifics can be included using conditional tagging. I can add more examples of how to tag schedules if necessary however. Happy new year! - Luke (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

While the term "generator" can be used for anything that generates electricity in the power industry, in common usage it means a device which converts mechanical energy to electrical energy. Solar panels and chemical batteries might "generate" electricity by some technical definitions, but they are not called "generators" by ordinary people. If you want a term for any type of "electricity which doesn't come from the grid", it would be better to use "off_grid" instead of "generator".

Re: electricity=intermittent - We need a more specific definition of "intermittent", or if it's not possible to clearly define, then we should just have "yes" and "no", since the standard, expected level of electrical supply reliability varies widely based on where you live. --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The term 'generator'is consistent with the way ti is defined in the power=generator scheme. The definition is currently being discussed in another proposal and I'll change the wording here if the definiton changes but it will stay consistent with the OSM definition. 'Off_grid' doesn't work in many cases, for example grid-connected solar panels. I've already linked numerous patents, papers, companies that call solar systems solar generators. A quantified definition of intermittent has been added. I'd be happy for you to change your vote if you agree. - Luke (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. This seems like an overworked proposal that only adds tag pollution. From the examples above: amenity=charging_station + electricity=yes + electricity:grid=yes + electricity:grid:origin=hydro + electricity:access=customers + electricity:fee=yes + socket:type2=2 could be reduced to amenity=charging_station + electricity=grid + access=customers + fee=yes + socket:type2=2 and keeps to using universal tags like access and fee rather than specialised ones under the electricity namespace. Like Mateusz Konieczny I disagree with tagging electricity:grid:origin=hydro or similar unless it's used only on small generators or things not connected to the grid since there is no way of knowing what the actual source is (apart from pure guesswork). --Riiga (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At a charging station it is not necessary to use the electricity namespace as that it is clear. In the case of a cafe, however, it is crucial to distinguish between fees for e.g. Key:internet_access and those for electricity. In the case of grid:origin, as discussed ad nauseum, if it is explicitly advertised it should be possible to tag this feature. Similarly, a mapper can't verify that organic food is actually organic at a farm shop. This is still tagged however. Also, generators are tagged with generator:input=* and so there can be no confusion with grid:origin=* which is explicitly for the financial origin. - Luke (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --2hu4u (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I am generally not a huge fan of tagging advertised electricity origins, as that could change rapidly and we're also not tagging for example where the beef in a supermarket comes from, but other than that, the proposal seems to make sense. I'd define "intermittent" as roughly less than 99% availability over time or (equivalently) more than about 15 minutes of outage per day. I also agree that a solar cell isn't a generator, but as long as the tagging scheme internally makes sense, I can live with that. --Jonathan Haas (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I share the opinion that this is an overworked proposal that only adds tag pollution. --TheBlackMan (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean precisely by overworked? - Luke (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Only one example: electricity:grid:origin - We couldn't prove (on the ground) where the energy in a power grid came from. Normally it is a mixture in an interconnected energy network (e.g. Synchronous grid of Continental Europe, West African Power Pool). I think it is also an unneccessary information in a geographic (!) database. The interesting information, even in underdeveloped countries is, if there is power. We map power lines, we map solar panels, wind generators and so on. These are valuable information we can prove on the ground or we can evalute from aerial photography. They are remarkable, usable, evaluable and practically used by e.g. https://openinframap.org/. In no way we can for sure say, from which origin the energy in a powerline came from. Finally I don't see the necessity for most of the other proposed tags (why introduce electricity:fee when fee=yes|no give the same information). The additional value in comparison to the load of work is, from my point of view, highly questionable. --TheBlackMan (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The grid:origin tag is used for tagging what is stated on a sign by the electricity provider. Particularly in Germany, "Ökostrom" is a designation that many consumers look for in the same way that we tag "organic" on shops. For consumers and travellers, it can be important to know if a cafe, camping spot, etc has electricity and this is not something that can be determined by knowing where power lines or solar panels are. Similarly, we tag internet_access. In many of these cases, the amenity provides some other service and so it can be important to distinguish if there is a fee for the internet_access vs electricity vs laundry for example. These would then be the use cases where it is helpfully to use the namespace tagging for fee and access. The tagging is included here so that we keep a consistent scheme within OSM and it is tagged in the same way as internet_access (otherwise half of people would tag electricity:fee=* and the other half fee:electricity=*). For the actual tagging pages I would likely shorten the rationale parts so that the page is considerably easier to read - unfortunately this is quite a complex and global topic as you mentioned, which doesn't lend itself to a short two-paragraph proposal. - Luke (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not that important for consumers to know that a location advertises Ökostrom. It's not verifiable and it doesn't make a practical difference. And in comparison, organic=* makes a practical difference, because organic products are usually different brands, cost and taste from normal products and it's also verifiable, because organic/"Bio" labels are heavily protected by law while lying about Ökostrom is very easy. Also the key looks needlessly complicated, what about green_electricity=yes/no, for example? -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't make a practical difference. There are "guarantees of origin" (which is where the name of the tag originates) in Europe and some countries, so it's roughly as verifiable as a "Bio". Something like green_electricity would work as well, but then it doesn't separate generator and grid which is important and someone would likely complain that it's not really "green". -- Luke (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. "Overworked" clearly describes it. Too many unnecessary tags for negative and/or implicit features.--Yektara (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. On 1 December 2020, I explained (see above) why I oppose this proposal. I reviewed my reasons and most of them still apply. I share the concern by Mateusz Konieczny w.r.t. the source of power and the concern by Yektara that the proposal is overworked. Even if all these arguments did not apply, I would vote no because one of the authors of the proposal edited the proposal after the start of this voting. --Nakaner (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While I share your first concern, it is not really valid to complain about the minor change to the proposal in that edit ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2Felectricity&type=revision&diff=2081752&oldid=2081748 ) because it made no significant difference in the meaning of the proposed tags. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns both on the Talk page as mentioned above as well as on the mailing list - neither of which you responded to. The edit was discussed on the mailing list and only made a minor clarification as mentioned by Jeisenbe. -- Luke (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. reason --Hungerburg (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Some of what is in the proposal can already be expressed in alrady common tags. It looks like vertical integration, ie. capture all of power supplies: From battery backed Data-centers to any socket in industrial buildings, cafés, residential households etc. from the US to Burkina Faso. Correctly filling this will always be a chore so it will stay a niche use forever with many false claims.

Addendum, rereading the proposal: Recently added a charging station close to an alpine hut, for e-bikes, gratis, a service by the commune, not the tenant. No problem: amenity=charging_station;fee=no. If, in the hut, I ask nicely, they will allow me to charge my phone, but can I add electricity:fee=no to the hut? I suppose, it is only free for customers that have drinks and meals, and also not for any kind of electricity use, e.g. a portable water boiler. Then I know of at least one tourism hut, that I could tag electricity:grid=no;electricity:generator=yes;electricity:generator:input=solar;electricity:storage=yes;electricity:storage:type=lead/acid and at the same time with electricity=no, because they do not allow guests to charge phones (they have a sign up to not be bothered with asking.)

One more reading later, I see in hut1 I have to tag electricity=yes;electricity:access=customers;electricty:use=phone-charging and in hut2 I have to tag electricity=yes;electricity:access=private. I guess I now understand, what overworked means: It is very specific and detailed, much to consider. Yet still incomplete.

• I oppose this proposal. I agree with the reasons for voting no given by other people so far. Tagging the source of the electricity seems especially problematic to me because there's really no way to tell where electricity comes from. Outside of maybe the example of Germany, but tags should universally applicable and there doesn't seem to be any certification in Germany for it anyway from the minimal research I've done to guarantee where the electricity comes from. I know where I live we have a dam that generates electricity. Weirdly none of the electricity actually goes to us. It ends up down south, but I'm sure people would be tempted to still tag things here like that's where their electricity is coming from and the other 100 possible sources in the area. I don't think the analogy to organic produce is relevant either, because that can be ground verified and there's standards of when you can put an organic sticker on something or not. I have the same reservations about a tag that shows electricity is intermittent. That said, maybe a simpler proposal of electricity=yes/no would work, but even then it would have to be extremely well defined and clearly only applied to certain areas so it doesn't get tagged on everything when it doesn't need to be. Which I doubt "the community" would stick to. It's to easy for tags like that to be tagged crazily and without actually being ground verified. How would you ground verify something like a house has electricity, where it comes from, or if it goes out sometimes or not anyway? Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

The result is Rejected with 12 votes for, 8 votes against and 3 abstentions.

Approval rate: 66.7%. Less than required 75% hence rejection.

• I approve this proposal. - Luke (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Well thought-out proposal -- would very much like to see this accepted --Gausserrorfunction (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. as this encourages pointless electricity=yes spam in places where everything has electricity. Adding electricity=yes to hospitals and other buildings is pointless in many places.

(was abstain as I hoped that I missed this) "electricity=yes and electricity=no should be used to tag the availability of electricity of any kind" - I was looking for explicit request to not map it on things where it can be safely assumed (for example amenity=hospital in countries where one may assume that hospital has electricity). Have I missed it? (I am pretty sure that it appeared in some of earlier comments) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

With "any kind" I meant either grid or generator. But I also thought there was a "significant" in there somewhere - perhaps only a comment and I forgot to add it to the main proposal? I would add something to that effect though as I agree that it makes sense to only tag those amenities where the availability is not a given. - Luke (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. There are many times when it is nice to be able to tag whether certain things have electricity.--Blendergeek (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mar Mar (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel it is not well defined what electricity=yes actually means. Does it mean the building has electricity, or the electricity is available to a visitor/guest? Or putting it another way, what is the implied value of electricity:access=* if it isn't present? If it just means that the building has electricity, tagging electricity=yes is useless in most developed countries, as that should be implied. If it means the electricity is available to guests (like in the café/campsite example), that means the tagging doesn't make sense for third-world-hospitals. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The implied value is private, and I would add a note to pages like cafe and camp_site that sites should be tagged with electricity=yes + electricity:access=customers/permissive if outlets are publicly available. I took the detailed paragraph about this out since people said it was too long and overworked but apparently the one sentence at the top isn't clear enough, so I'll try rewording that after the vote to make it clearer. - Luke (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rereading it, I think the difficulty lies in the word 'availability' - I would change this to 'existence' to make the definition clear after the proposal. - Luke (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Luke, that sounds like a good idea, but I think we should only tag availability. Existence alone isn't really provable on the ground and electricity is neither necessary nor sufficient for things like lighting or heating. Just tag them separately: electricity=yes means electricity is available to a visitor (using some socket that should be specified as well), lit=yes mean light is available to a visitor, heated=yes means heat is available to a visitor. Or something like that. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Norike (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Nanou (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Andraina (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. While I agree that current electricity=* is problematic, the proposal (as currently is) does not match its rationale which says "... know which amenities and buildings provide outlets or other charging facilities for smartphones, cars, bikes and other gadgets." - So, travelers/tourists need to know: if the electricity is available to THEM (electricity:access=*), at what price (electricity:fee=*), at what times electricity:conditional=*, and if it's compatible with their device (socket=*). (They theoretically could also be "green" and thus prefer some electricity sources as detailed in proposal). Given that electricity=yes is highly spammy in all non-3rd-world-countries (just remember natural=tree chaos) and not well defined, and that other values can be expressed using electricity:conditional=*, I think electricity=* should be completely deprecated in favor of remaining tags (in which case I'd vote yes). --mnalis (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that a sole electricity=yes tag in the developed world is nearly useless. The idea is to give detail using the subkeys that you mentioned. However, it was pointed out in the discussion that it is useful to have an overarching tag electricity=yes/no that signals if this information is provided. For example, in the case of a camp_site, electricity=no can be valuable information on its own, while electricity=yes would mean that a traveler would also like to have information as to fee/access/socket type. However some people might only tag electricity:access but not fee or vice versa so if searching using overpass turbo the general tag can help filter better. Overall though the proposal is mainly about the subkeys IMO and should obviously only be tagged when significant. - Luke (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

electricity=no is for all practical purposes means the same as electricity:access=no, so it is redundant - having it will only complicate and slow down overpass queries as you would have to search for both instead of only one (and you're going to have electricity:access=* anyway). Also, general note on changing the semantics of the existing tag: never reuse previous values, unless they mean exactly the same thing. As you should never mass-edit previous tags (unless all of them were made by you), and some users will never know of change and will continue using old semantics (remember building=* and building:use=*?) there will be both old and new tags present likely forever, and if new electricity=yes means something different than old electricity=yes (and you say above that they do mean different things - the new one by default implies private access, while old one did not) that will only make both the old and new value meaningless, as nobody could be sure which one is meant. --mnalis (talk)

It does not mean the same thing at all! Consider a campground with private electricity (i.e. lights, heating etc.) versus one without any at all. Also it is then consistent with the old proposal. The values have the same meaning as the previous tag where access was not specified, which is why it is necessary to include the access tag. We need an access key, so by defining it as implied private we stay on the safe side of rather harsher restrictions than may be the case. I've been very careful to consider the differences between the old and new tagging. BTW, so far electricity=yes has been used only 500 times. - Luke (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But you can't conclude from electricity=yes, that there's heating or lighting available to customers. Maybe there's just a small, irrelevant lightbulb on the entrance, or maybe there's a private staffroom that has light and heating, but nothing else. Or on the opposite site, maybe there's no electricity, but they're heating using wood, oil, natural gas or coal. And to indicate if something is lit, you could just use lit=yes. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Luke, if the access to electricity is private, then you'd obviously mark it with electricity:access=private, so there is no need for electricity=* in that case either. Also you cannot imply in this comment that this proposal is "consistent with old" (which did not imply private) and in other comment "The implied value is private". It is either one or the other - it seems more work is needed on proposal to better define it. As for the usefulness of the main tag, you have to ask yourself what extra information is conveyed by electricity=* than cannot be conveyed by other tags? To me, (electricity:access=* and electricity:conditional=* cover all specified values of electricity=* ("yes", "intermittent", "no"), so IMO electricity=* itself is thus redundant / unneeded, confusing, and allows for invalid combinations (like electricity=no + electricity:access=yes which would be handled differently depending on data consumer) and is as such a bad idea - even if that tag was never used before. And "was used only 500 times" makes things even much much worse than that when tag meaning changes, as it means at minimum that you need to resurvey 500 places around the globe, and also contact and convince all the mappers that used old syntax to stop doing what they were doing and do it the new way, and update all documents and recorded video presentations etc. on the web and elsewhere, in which electricity=yes means something different now - it is realistically impossible, so the best is really just to drop useless "main" electricity=* tag and concentrate on usefulness of subtags for this reform. Then, as it catches on, we mark electricity=* as deprecated while linking to those alternatives all the time. Also, everything that Jonathan Haas said above: electricity is not heat nor light, nor does it imply either. --mnalis (talk)

I never mentioned that electricity=yes/no has any connection in OSM to the tags for lighting or heat! Rather, there is a real world difference between electricity:access=no and electricity=no and so the two shouldn't be conflated as mappers may think something is mistagged. If you would take a look at the amenities tagged with electricity=yes, you would see that most would likely be electricity:access=private. I definitely wouldn't automatically tag these with an access tag, but I think it is reasonable to say that electricity has an implicit access value and that we then rather err on the side of caution. As the electricity=yes tag has been used previously, I need to somehow define it in the context of this proposal. Alternatively, one could define electricity=yes as only public-access as suggested above, but this would then definitely conflict with the old proposal. Thus, this seems a reasonable compromise. The number of mappers that have used the electricity=yes key is sufficiently finite and one could also include in JOSM at least a validation check for an access key if electricity=yes is used. And, as consistently noted, a parent tag for the various subtags is far from useless as it helps with filtering and quality control of the sub-tagging. -- Luke (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Luke, I've broken this down is several chunks in talk page as it was getting quite unwieldy here, so please leave your answers and clarifications there. Just to summarize, it breaks down to 3 important parts (and several less important):

(1) new electricity=yes cannot mean different thing that old one did (it should be deprecated instead);

(2) electricity:access=no is same as electricity=no for all practical purposes, and both are different to electricity:access=private and

(3) electricity=* is superfluous (obsoleted by its own subtags) and also leads to problems with tagging and filtering, and should be avoided -- all of its meanings are well defined by subtags. --mnalis (talk)

• I oppose this proposal. Fourth time voting? Still a no from me. The current tag is sufficient and much easier to use. --Riiga (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a major tag about an amenity that is encountered in daily life so it needs careful consideration. Since most people only comment during voting, multiple voting rounds are necessary to get to a consistent tag definition. I hope this is not the sole reason for your opposing vote as it has nothing to do with the substance of the tag. The old tag is inconsistent (see wind vs solar vs generator https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:electricity&oldid=1804116) and not modular (tagging of grid-connected generators is impossible) and lacks key information (public vs private access) which is why a revision and expansion is necessary. - Luke (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fourth time voting?" - if one adjusts proposal on feedback rather than trying to propose exactly the same one it is perfectly fine Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Mateusz, this is how things should work - in incremental fixes! So I look forward to another round of corrections (getting rid of useless and problematic master tag and few smaller clarifications/changes on subtags) and 5th round of voting (where I'd hopefully be able to switch my vote to yes) --mnalis (talk)

• I oppose this proposal. It is not obvious to which elements the tag is applicable. The tagging text refers to public buildings and amenities and the examples show the applicability to tourism=camp_site. Electricity should only be applicable to a few named elements. --Ibanez (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Camp sites are one of amenities (with "amenity" used as word in English, not as OSM tag). And proposal explicitly mentions camp sites "No approved tagging exists yet to tag electricity that is available in public buildings or at diverse amenities, such as campsites, charging stations, harbours, etc." 08:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Privatemajory (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Shaun das Schaf (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Things shoud move forward, despite not perfect nor complete, this proposal brings useful tools we could use to build something even more robust later Fanfouer (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fanfouer: yes things should move forward even when not perfect nor complete. But they should not move forward when they actually break existing things like this version of proposal does (and the fix is not that hard, see my comments associated with my vote=no. But unless fixed before going public, it would render this tag useless for consumers, and in addition it would break existing tag values! --mnalis (talk)

• I oppose this proposal. While I would welcome tags that show how the general public can use electricity in certain places, mapping whether an individual building has electricity service is too generic to serve any specific purpose. The overlap with the amenity=charging_station tag is insufficiently addressed. 501ghost (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I worry that adding this will mean we get a huge amount of unnecessary clutter tags on every building. While it's useful for some specific use-cases, the majority of the time it's not useful. --ForgottenHero (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree but assumed that it was clear that not every tag needs to be specify that it should only be tagged when significant - most other tags don't have this disclaimer. If adding a sentence to that effect in the wiki documentation would be enough to change your vote, I'd be happy if you would reconsider your current vote.- Luke (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. for essentially the same reasons I opposed it before. I guess my original vote disappeared though. Maybe the proposal was pared down. Either way, I don't think it's a good idea because of the chance for over tagging things that shouldn't be. It might be useful in certain areas, I don't think it should be arbitrarily used everywhere, which will likely happen and there is no way to curb if it is approved. Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your vote didn't disappear - see comments from previous rounds. I reworked the proposal and removed the source tagging for now as it apparently needed more work. The tags are meant only for significant public buildings as mentioned. -- Luke (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. This could be useful for some specific use cases such as public buildings (e.g. social facilities, ...) or remote mountain huts, but I believe this proposal and any followup (wiki) documentation created for this tagging scheme needs to add a lot more emphasis that this should NOT be spammed everywhere. --Woazboat (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree but assumed that it was clear that not every tag needs to be specify that it should only be tagged when significant - most other tags don't have this disclaimer. If adding a sentence to that effect in the wiki documentation would be enough to change your vote, I'd be happy if you would reconsider your current vote. - Luke (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. the proposal is not perfect, but it has the merit of working on a real problem (2x2 existing tags with the same meaning, in addition to possible missing tags). to avoid drowning here, I posted my "split" notice on the talk page. Marc marc (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. There are not a ton on places where those tags will be useful, but it's still a good step forward. I would however put more emphasis on the necessity of electricity:access=* for camping and similar venues. --13:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Something B (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)