Proposal:Power circuits routing
| Power circuits routing | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposed (under way) |
| Proposed by: | fanfouer |
| Tagging: | power=circuit
|
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | Consistent tagging model for power circuits going along physical power infrastructure |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2025-03-21 |
| RFC start: | 2025-04-17 |
Power routing aims to document what actual paths power can follow over a physical network, mainly between actual substations and along power lines. This proposal has been written in 2025 and largely based upon Bahnpirat and Surly work in the original power routing proposal. Several plea for finalizing what could be immediately implemented remain stuck and without majority consent. This proposal represents an effort to push forward key elements and enhancements that could be achieved at the moment.
This presentation made on SOTM-EU 2023 intends to bring a summary of what it is proposed and what matters most.
This proposal lead by Ddtt92 and fanfouer is part of the work program of the Oh my grid initiative.
Proposal
This proposal seeks to approve two new relations type=power + power=circuit and type=power + power=line_section.
These relations involve elements such as power lines (in a broad sense, including overhead lines, cables, and minor distribution lines) and substations that form a continuous electrical circuit—i.e., a physical path through which electricity flows across the grid.
The latter relation type=power + power=line_section will allow mappers to define a subpart of a power circuits (a section) which may contain one or more power line segments as shown in the "Rationale" section below. This provides a more flexible and semantically meaningful structure than relying solely on linear features or creating single-member relations for short segments.
To complement the above, it is also proposed topology=*, to indicate the structural layout of the circuit. This would distinguish between:
topology=linear: circuits with two endpoints (a typical point-to-point transmission line),topology=branched: circuits with three or more endpoints, such as ring or mesh networks.
Rationale
As OpenStreetMap represents physical power lines in a synthetic way, often aggregating different lines sharing the same towers on the same way, the power lines won't reflect the actual flow of power.
It is nevertheless possible to use the relational model to assemble different line sections to compose actual power paths just like it's done for public transportation over roads ways.
Everything required to make such an assembly is available on ground, by looking at how conductors are actually connected and at labels put on towers as well.
Mapping power circuits as relations is an established practice since 2017. The point of this proposal is to promote a single tagging model instead of several (at least two, maybe more).
It is important to express that this proposal does not aim to increase unnecessary complexity or introduce excessive use of relations. Its authors and many in the power infrastructure mapping community are committed to finding the cleanest and most maintainable solution possible. Nevertheless, in certain cases, the use relations is required to provide a robust description of logical concepts over physical assets of power grids without information redundancy.
Power circuits
A power circuit is defined by 601-02-28 IEC60050 definition. It represents the longest continuous portion of a power grid between circuit breakers, which are typically located within substations. Circuit breakers isolate electrical faults occurring on a given circuit to avoid the propagation of the fault to other circuits and prevent power grids failure.
A circuit is composed of as many power line sections as necessary.
In practice, a circuit can be mapped by finding continuous conductors, going along power line sections without breakers, and joined as members of a relation.
Typically, circuits are primarily linear, connecting two endpoints. However, they can also be branched, linking more than two substations, as long as the continuity is maintained.
How will we get such information?
Circuits can be deducted by looking at power lines from ground or on aerial imagery. A circuit is first of all a metallic continuation of conductors between substations so mappers only have to follow the cables and stop when a circuit breaker is encountered.
Looking in details at particular points will help, particularly the towers which has got line_management=* or nodes with switch=circuit_breaker.
Doing so will allow mappers to connect the dots and finally the substations with their neighbors.
Readable labels on towers can also help to know which substations are reachable by the given circuit passing by the tower.
Public documentation with valid license could help to solve undefined situations. Such knowledge will then be verifiable on ground.
Power line sections
A power line section is defined by 601-02-30 IEC60050 definition. It consists of one or more continuous line segments (i.e., consistently tagged power=line ways in OSM) that form a connection between substations or tap points.
Each section always has exactly two endpoints. In practice, a line section is composed of conductors that run continuously along power line segments between substations or tap points.
To keep mapping simple, a relation is only required when the section includes two or more segments that need to be grouped. If the section is composed of a single segment, the concepts of “section” and “segment” are merged, and no relation is necessary—the single power=line way is sufficient.
How will we get such information?
Power lines sections are simpler than circuits and can also be deducted from ground survey or aerial imagery. A section is metallic continuation of conductors between two substations or between a substation or a tap point.
Mappers are expected to follow the line and stop by substations or tap points.
Just like circuits survey, looking in details at particular points will help, particularly the towers which has got line_management=* or nodes with switch=circuit_breaker.
Public documentation with valid license could help to solve undefined situations. Such knowledge will then be verifiable on ground.
Power circuits aren't routes
Power circuits are not similar to transportation routes. Power lines allow power to flow over them and aren't similar to transportation networks.
type=route states Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route, a cyclist on a national route or a hiker on a signed and named walking route.
A traveling of electrons is rather physical abstraction, and it is not so simple as "small moving balls" nor comparable to routes traveled by humans.
Proposed tagging will enable a better split between transportation and power software as the last will only rely on power=* and won't have to look for any route=* in input datasets.
So the structure of power circuit relations is very different from structure of a route relation.
That is why we should not tag power circuits with type=route + route=power. We should tag power circuits as a dedicated relation type=power + power=circuit as it is suggested in the proposal.
There is no trunk and branch
This section relates on circuits with more than two ends.
Some models sometimes define a multi-tenant circuit as a trunk line and one or several branch lines. Such a distinction isn't relevant as the trunk line may be any valid combination of line sections linking two substations through the given circuit. Nothing but the geometry of lines allows to set the trunk line as the one which goes on without change in its direction (if applicable).
We'd be better defining only line sections which converge on tapping points and join them in a proper circuit relation.
If and only if a given section is composed of several segments, an intermediate relation could be used to group properties like cables=* and frequency=* for the good.
Otherwise, when a section is composed of a single segment, this segment (
) can be directly involved as a member of the circuit relation with role section.
Why aren't we prompted for capacity in MW?
Public communication often deals with actual power line capacity in MW as the amount of power that could flow in the power line without damage.
Such values aren't constant and vary due to seasons and upon operational conditions. They're sometimes restricted in a given time period (i.e 4 000 MW during 10 minutes) as to not overheat and finally destroy the power conductors.
We shouldn't add this value to OSM, despite interesting, as it won't be accurate and lead to wrong interpretation.
Less tagging redundancy between lines, sections and circuits
This proposal is an opportunity to solve some redundancy issues we had between lines and circuits from the beginning.
Just like other fields of knowledge, using relations on top of a physical network of lines allows to get a more precise meaning of tags.
See the following table summarizing how tagging should be:
| Tags | Single segment merged with section | Meaning on circuits | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning on line segments | Meaning on sections | |||
frequency=* |
- | - | The frequency at which the circuit is operated | Frequency is an operational value independent from physical conductors. It only matters for circuits. |
wires=* |
Conductors bundles arrangement | - | - | Bundles arrangement only regard physical line. A given circuit can go through several line sections with different bundles. |
cables=* |
How many cables on the physical line | How many cables the section involves | How many cables the circuit involves | Cables can be used on both. The sum of all operating circuits over a given line should be <= of the line total amount of cables. |
voltage=* |
The maximum voltage the line has been designed for | The maximum voltage the section has been designed for | The operating voltage of the circuit | Circuits can be operated at lower voltages than permitted by the actual line design |
name=* |
- | The line section's name | The circuit's name, usually involving substations' names at its ends | Circuits will combine several line sections and they should all be named after what they actually represent |
Tagging
Power lines
Power line segments mapping isn't changed by this proposal and practices explained in power=line, power=minor_line and power=cable remain valid.
Pages will be updated to explain it's about mapping line segments, as per 601-02-31 IEC60050 definition.
Circuits relations
| Key | Value | Comment | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation | Mandatory |
power |
circuit |
This relation represents a power circuit | Mandatory |
topology |
linear or branched |
Nature of power circuit topology | Recommended |
voltage |
<Operating voltage> | The voltage at which the circuits operates, in volts | Recommended |
frequency |
<Operating frequency> | The frequency at which the circuits operates, in Hertz | Recommended |
cables |
<Circuit's cables> | The amount of cables involved by the circuit | Recommended |
ref |
<Reference> | The circuit's reference | Optional |
name |
<Name> | The circuit's readable name | Optional |
operator |
<Company name> | The company in charge of circuits operation | Optional |
Relation's roles
The relation combines one or more line sections, 0 or more tap points and two or more substations in which the circuits originates and ends
| Member's role | Member's type | Count | Member | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| section |
|
one or more | Power line section | A section of the power circuit |
| tap | 
|
one or more | Power line tap, related to line_management=branch
|
A node at which several sections connect to form a tap point |
| substation | 
|
two or more | Substation | A substation in where the circuit starts / ends |
Circuits topology
The key topology=* is intended to be generaly used on any relation on which the topology nature need to be explicitly stated.
| Key | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
topology
|
linear | The relation involves several sections in a given order and continuous manner, with exactly two ends |
| branched | The relation involves several sections that aren't continuous with 3 or more ends |
Sections relations
| Key | Value | Comment | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation | Mandatory |
power |
line_section |
This relation represents a section of a power line | Mandatory |
voltage |
<Operating voltage> | The voltage at which the section operates, in volts | Recommended |
cables |
<Section's cables> | The amount of cables involved by the section | Recommended |
ref |
<Reference> | The section's reference | Optional |
name |
<Name> | The section's readable name | Optional |
operator |
<Company name> | The company in charge of section operation | Optional |
Relation's roles
The relation combines two or more line segments.
A relation with a single line segment is not permitted and mappers should be discouraged to add them. They will prefer involving the power=line segment directly in a circuit relation.
| Member's role | Member's type | Count | Member | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| line |
|
two or more | Power line segment | A segment of power line involved in the power section |
Change management
Affected pages
- Edit
power=linepage to add segment definition - Edit
power=minor_linepage to add segment definition - Edit
power=cablepage to add segment definition - Edit
power=circuitpage - Create
power=line_sectionpage - Create
type=powerpage - Create
topology=*page
Tags to be replaced
| Obsolete tag | Usage | Used for ? | New tag(s) to use |
|---|---|---|---|
type=route + route=power |
23 484 on 2025-03-21 | A route used to describe a power circuit | type=power + power=circuit
|
power=branch |
244 on 2025-03-26 | A relation to link trunk and branches | To replace by power=circuit and case by case required power=line_section relations
|
frequency=* |
45 654 ways on 2025-03-24 query | Frequency mention on power line sections members of an existing power circuit relation | Remove frequency=* from the line section
|
wires=* |
12 447 relations on 2025-03-24 query | Wires mention on existing power circuit relations | Remove wires=* from the relation
|
External discussions
- See all previous comments in power routing proposal
- RFC announcement on community forum
- RFC announcement on OpenMod community forum
Examples
All following examples look like they are took out of operator's or engineering documentation but they're not.
All displayed information, except references which come from open data, can be obtained on ground during a survey or on aerial imagery.
Their complexity comes from the combination of a diversity of components over large distances.
A linear circuit with two ends
This circuit is said linear because it links two substations with no tap point.
However, it runs over 5 different line sections and you will observe that the wires changes along its path.
As the circuit only have two ends, it is possible to directly involve line segments in the circuit relation.
| Key | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation |
power |
circuit |
This relation represents a power circuit |
topology |
linear |
This power circuit is linear with 2 ends |
voltage |
400000 | The voltage at which the circuits operates, in volts |
frequency |
50 |
Alternative public grids are operated at 50Hz in western Europe |
cables |
3 | It's 3-phase without neutral power circuit |
ref:FR:RTE |
CORNIL71M.LAN | The circuit's French reference |
ref:EU:ENTSOE_EIC |
17T-FR-00000066P | The circuit's European reference |
name |
Cornier-Montagny les Lanches 1 | The circuit's readable name |
operator |
RTE | French transmission grid is operated by RTE in France |
Sections A to F are power=line ways and will get the section role. Substations are power=substation members with the role substation.
This circuit is currently described in 5459750 5459750 that will need to be refined, because using the discouraged type=route tagging, if this proposal gets adopted.
The difficulty to produce an accurate model of the actual power path with the physical lines knowledge only appears clearly.
A more complex circuit with sections as single segment
This circuit involves 3 line sections and 1 tap point to link 3 substations together.
All 3 sections are composed of 1 power=line segment, so no additional power=line_section is required.
It is still possible to involve the ways as circuit relation members and section role.
| Key | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation |
power |
circuit |
This relation represents a power circuit |
topology |
branched |
This power circuit has 3 ends so form a branched topology. 3 substation members are expected |
voltage |
225000 | The voltage at which the circuits operates, in volts |
frequency |
50 |
Alternative public grids are operated at 50Hz in western Europe |
cables |
3 | It's 3-phase without neutral power circuit |
name |
Grandval-Lanau-Rueyres 1 | The circuit's readable name |
operator |
RTE | French transmission grid is operated by RTE in France |
Sections A to C are power=line ways and will get the section role. Substations are power=substation members with the role substation and tower #1 will be member with role tap.
This circuit is currently described in 5465785 5465785 that will need to be refined, because using the discouraged type=route tagging, if this proposal gets adopted.
The most complex circuit with sections as relations
This circuit involves 3 line sections and 1 tap point to link 3 substations together.
The northern section is mapped as a relation as it involves 3 different segments, with different tags that can't be merged into a single one.
Two remaining sections are involved in the circuit relation as ways and get the section role.
Here is the circuit relation:
| Key | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation |
power |
circuit |
This relation represents a power circuit |
topology |
branched |
This power circuit has 3 ends so form a branched topology. 3 substation members are expected |
voltage |
225000 | The voltage at which the circuits operates, in volts |
frequency |
50 |
Alternative public grids are operated at 50Hz in western Europe |
cables |
3 | It's 3-phase without neutral power circuit |
name |
Saint Auban-Salignac-Sisteron 1 | The circuit's readable name |
operator |
RTE | French transmission grid is operated by RTE in France |
Here is the section C relation:
| Key | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
type |
power |
This is a power relation |
power |
line_section |
This relation represents a power line section |
voltage |
225000 | The voltage at which the section operates, in volts |
cables |
3 | It's 3-phase without neutral power section |
operator |
RTE | French transmission grid is operated by RTE in France |
ref:FR:RTE |
SISTEL61ZSAL6 | The French identifier of the power line section |
Sections A and B are power=line ways and will get the section role. Section C is a power=line_section relation and will get the section role.<
Substations are power=substation members with the role substation and tower #1 will be member with role tap.
This circuit is currently described in 5977379 5977379 that will need to be refined, because using the discouraged type=route tagging, if this proposal gets adopted.
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal! |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For more types of votes you can cast, see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I oppose this proposal. Hardly verifible and lack of easy ground truth. --Riiga (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal. Seems to combine failing verifiability by the ground survey and relations with complexity similar to public transport. Also, planned mapping methods conflicts with "Everything required to make such an assembly is available on ground" claim. Maybe technically "circuit breakers, which are typically located within substations" are available on the ground but it does not make them surveyable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. There's nothing in this proposal about how to map or verify this data. SomeoneElse (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Wire diameter should not be mapped, because we can't get that info, but impedance should? All arguments for or against the former also apply to the latter. I also don't understand the reasoning against `type=route`. Sure, it's not public transit, but there are also bike routes. Lastly, the `topology` key seems like unnecessary duplication, as the number of `substation` directly implies `linear`/`branched`. --Jofban (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
-- Comments has got answers on talk page. Mind having a look at it when voting please
- I oppose this proposal. This is definitely not KISS anymore. --chris66 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. The description is long because detailed but improves modelisation of this topic in OSM and quality control tools exist to detect incoherencies in the data in the long run. Thanks for the effort in the redaction of this proposal. --Pogregoire (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I love how detailed you documented everything here and you clearly know what you're talking about. But I don't know enough about it to know if it's indeed as unverifiable as the others here are saying. --Thibaultmol (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Ddtt92 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. In fact, I approve this proposal. Nevertheless, my company Jungle Bus being involved as a subcontractor in the Oh My Grid initiative, voting YES would be a conflict of interest, so I request that my vote is not taken into account. I think that the perceived complexity comes from the fact that the topic is technical and specific. It shouldn't stop us to approve it: some networks are complex and hard to describe in OSM, and that's perfectly normal. We already face a precedent with the Public Transport model, and this complexity did not stop us from using it. Now, the electric grid seems a promising topic, and the applications are countless as soon as the power network becomes truly routable. This is the aim of this proposal. Also, I believe that every condition is respected: the verifiability criteria is not violated. Therefore, it's not a topic limited to open data integration but involves a proper ground collection task. --Overflorian (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
-- Fist vote has been closed on 2025-06-03