Proposal talk:Data center technical attributes

Additional power source info

I like this idea a lot, and especially now that data center sprawl and power usage running out of hand is becoming a highly debated issue, having this data available on OSM makes a lot of sense to me.

Have you therefore considered additional tags to indicate a data centers power source? There are certain certifications for green power for data centers, which are about as well defined as the uptime tiers. It might be worth looking into a tagging scheme for those, if you're about to establish data center power related tags anyway. PizzaTreeIsland (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

I agree that it might be useful to specify the power source. But I’m not sure that data centers only have a single power source. It might therefore be difficult to store all this information. We may need to first identify the various possible sources.

But if the data center has generators, I think we could describe them using existing tags (power:generator, etc.) LunaLune (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There's electricity=* Kovposch (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

As for green power certification, I will look into this further and check whether its license is compatible with that of OSM. LunaLune (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Existing options

• data_center:total_power=* → data_center:input=* / input:electricity=*
  • heating:input=*
  • Talk:Tag:telecom=data_center#Datacenter_capacity_(power)
  • Proposal:Power_generation_storage
• data_center:IT_power=*
  • data_center:capacity=* : We could say this is the real capacity=* for the data_center=* , not total "power capacity"
  • data_center:load=* "IT load" ( axle_load=* , metre_load=* )
• data_center:IT_area=* → data_center:floor_area=* : Floor area for the data_center:*=* (total/gross floor area should be building:floor_area=* already? But do you need to distinguish floor vs internal area)

Kovposch (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the total power should be renamed into data_center:input=*.

As for the IT power, I think data_center:IT_load=* would be more appropriate. This is because I only want to describe the capacity of IT rooms(servers, network,...), excluding the cooling rooms and offices.

data_center:IT_load=* does not correspond exactly to the total floor area of the building. It's only the floor area used for IT amenities:server racks, network equipment,etc. But it does not include offices, cooling rooms, etc LunaLune (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Non-IT could be included in building:floor_area=* , and we define data_center:floor_area=* as IT area. Basically treat data_center:*=* to mean IT-specific. Kovposch (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it now LunaLune (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

data_center:tier roman numeral values to numbers

I'm probably nitpicking, but I'd prefer using usual numbers instead of roman numerals. Lejun (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's following that official standard. But it's being discussed to be renamed to clarify. Kovposch (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you think buildings should be registered?

building=data_center?

data_center=telecom

data_center=IT

data_center=... Plennert (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

OSM recommends using telecom=data_center as the basis to describe data centers.

I've also noticed that some people add building=yes or building=data_center to this . But I'd prefer something like:

telecom=data_center

building=data_center LunaLune (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I reject `telecom=data_center` because "telecom" is too specific. A data center generally refers to an entire building or part of a building, whereas I associate "telecom" more with telecommunications itself. Plennert (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, some people talked about that here Talk:Tag:telecom=data_center#most_data_centres_are_nothing_to_do_with_telecoms LunaLune (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

And what is the result of the discussion? Can you summarize it here? Plennert (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Opinions have been divided. On the one hand, there is discussion about the tag’s history and the fact that data centers are part of the wider ‘telecom’ group. On the other hand, there is a view that the tag should be changed. However, no concrete suggestions for a new name have been put forward yet. LunaLune (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

telecom=* is simply a category to group related features, ie not all highway=* are "highway" roads. There should be a few features in need to warrant renaming/inventing.

Data centers can have multiple buildings, no? Kovposch (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, data centers can consist of multiple buildings, or even just parts of buildings. Therefore, I propose using the Key:building as the primary tag.

building=data_center (whole building)

building:part=data_center (for parts of a building)

datacenter:type=IT;telecom (separate multiple options with ";")

Will you be including this in the proposal? Plennert (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that data centers can be parts of buildings. But I'm not sure if the 'building:part' would actually be used. Given that most data centers that form part of buildings (server rooms, IT rooms, etc.) are owned by private individuals or are intended for personal use, I have some concerns about privacy LunaLune (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Food for thought?

Thank's for the proposal, it looks like it addresses a genuine gap, and the verifiability section is particularly well thought through.

Having read the existing discussion, a few additional thoughts:

'''Claimed vs. certified tier'''

The guidance to use `data_center:tier` only where officially certified or explicitly stated by the operator is sound, but in practice many facilities are marketed at a given tier without formal Uptime Institute certification. A sub-tag such as `data_center:tier:source=self_assessed` (consistent with the `source:*=*` convention already referenced in the examples) could help mappers and data consumers distinguish formally certified facilities from those where the tier is operator-claimed only. This would also reduce the temptation to leave the tag blank simply because certification paperwork isn't publicly available.

'''Power Utilisation Effectiveness (PUE)'''

Given that energy analysis is one of the primary use cases cited in the rationale, a `data_center:pue=*` tag seems a natural companion. PUE is the standard industry efficiency metric, is frequently disclosed in operator sustainability reports and planning documents, and is straightforward to verify. It would also complement the proposed input/IT load power tags nicely, since PUE = total_power ÷ IT_power — making it both derivable and independently verifiable. It might be worth considering as an optional addition here, or at minimum flagging it as a logical follow-on proposal.

'''Floor area naming'''

I'd support Kovposch's suggestion of treating `data_center:*` as implicitly IT-specific, leaving `building:floor_area` for gross area. `data_center:floor_area` feels cleaner and more consistent with that convention than `data_center:IT_area`, and avoids the capitalisation irregularity in the current key name.

'''Lifecycle status'''

There is currently no guidance on tagging facilities that are planned, under construction, or decommissioned. Given the volume of large data centres currently in the planning pipeline across Europe, even a brief note pointing to `construction=*` or recommending a `data_center:status=*` approach would help mappers encountering these cases.

None of these are blockers, the core proposal is solid and I would support it as written. These are just areas where a little extra clarity might reduce friction during and after adoption.

Many thanks,

Chris Chris debian (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!

Claimed vs. certified tier

I agree with your suggestion to distinguish claimed and certified tier. There was a talk RFC discussion regarding the legal contradiction associated with tagging the 'tier' and it turned out that it's prohibited by the Uptime Institute's Terms of Use. I will therefore remove it from this proposal for the time being.

Power Utilisation Effectiveness (PUE)

Yes, that metric is one of the main reasons why I wanted to tag total_power and IT_power. I'll think about adding it to this proposal, or as you said mention it for a follow-on one.

Floor area naming

I'll consider this when updating the proposal.

Lifecycle status

I was just about to start a talk on telecom=data_center regarding updating the wiki page to mention data centers 'status'. Whether using the existing Construction method, or a new tag. LunaLune (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

"data_centre" not American English spelling "data_center"

The tag should use British English spelling. If the original tag has similar spelling then it should be reformed before it becomes embedded. 06:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC) Jnicho02 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is more proposing suffixes, although the data_center can indeed be discussed together with the telecom=* Kovposch (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)