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)

Hello Kovposch,

I have renamed the tags data_center:input=* and data_center:load=* to data_center:power:input=* and data_center:power:load=*.

I also noticed that power:input already exists in Taginfo.

I made this change mainly to make the intended meaning clearer for users who may not be familiar with OSM tagging conventions, and to reduce the risk of misunderstanding.

I’d be interested to hear what you think. LunaLune (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

power:input=* is inappropriate. power=* is a feature in OSM, and includes other energy (as seen in *:output:*=* ). They are used on man_made=pumping_station , which has no standard.

input:electricity=* should be used. So if you want, it would be data_center:input:electricity=* , and possibly data_center:load:electricity=* (makes it further able to distinguish from heating or cooling load). But I don't see this as a must, as the data_center:*=* prefix should be clear enough. Kovposch (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

I think I'll use input:electricity=* for the input power.

As for IT-side power, I think data_center:it_power=* will be clearer(no capital letters for IT). As Fanfouer mentioned, "load" doesn't seem to be suitable.

Does that sound okay? LunaLune (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal_talk:Data_center_technical_attributes#Input_power Kovposch (talk) 17:14, 26 June 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)

Input power

Resolved

Hello, data_center:power:input=* is too complicated and not generic at all. Please consider simpler input:electricity=*.
Furthermore, it's currently defined as Maximum electrical power capacity of the entire facility (in kW or MW). Is it installed or subscribed? How mappers can make the difference? Fanfouer (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal_talk:Data_center_technical_attributes#Existing_options Kovposch (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, input:electricity=* seems like a good choice.

To clarify the definition, this tag refers to the installed electrical power capacity. I'll update the proposal text to make that clear. LunaLune (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Load power

Resolved

Same remark for data_center:power:load=*, the key sould be simpler. Let's consider compute_power=* or something similar. The definition Maximum power available for IT equipment only (excluding cooling, UPS losses, etc.) is currently inconsistent to load term (defined by IEC for instance, see [1]). You're not dealing with the load but with the compute thing (when computing occurs in the data center), so it's necessary to call tags accordingly. Fanfouer (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal_talk:Data_center_technical_attributes#Existing_options Kovposch (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about "load" not matching the official terminology very well. At the same time, I’m not sure that compute_power=* is the best option either, because it could suggest that the data center is used only as a computing facility. LunaLune (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for moving to data_center:it_power=*. I think it could be even simpler: data_center:*=* is not needed for two reasons. It is already combined telecom=data_center and could we find IT power consumed anywhere else than in a data center? So it_power=* would be better Fanfouer (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no need for a new top-level attribute. It should be some *:input:electricity=* eg server:input:electricity=* similar to generator:*=* for what's fed into servers. It could be used on amenity=research_institute , office=research , 1 man_made=supercomputer , cryptocurrency Talk:Key:resource#Bitcoin_Mining , etc. Kovposch (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

We seek to get rid of generator:input:*=*, let's not introduce such specific tag again Fanfouer (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to how there are different input purposes eg generators:input:electricity=* vs cooling:input:electricity=* , which your proposal doesn't handle. Otherwise it can be input:electricity:*=* Kovposch (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no need for input then, since input refers to feature level, while what we are discussing about is located inside. Why not it:electricity=* vs cooling:electricity=*? Fanfouer (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there such a distinction for inside vs outside? It's similar to power=plant + output:electricity=* (except the data processed can't be quantified)

It's not similar to me: output:electricity=* refers to plant's own level while here it:electricity=* would refer to some internal components particular consumption. input:electricity=* would apply if you describe each server as an OSM feature. IT in data centers would be similar to storage in some power plants and it got its own key without input: plant:storage=*Fanfouer (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's the power directed to the servers. If it's not input:*=* , there should be something else for the wattage handled. it=* is meaningless, and unsuitable for *:electricity=* at least directly. plant:storage=* is necessitated by being energy, not wattage. Kovposch (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

So it's only input:*=* at servers' level, not datacenter. I don't see any better term to use than it=* here as it's not only about compute but also switching and routing from and to the servers,GPU, whatever. Whatever storage for plants is took for energy and not wattage, wattage is the only figure we can handle in OSM about IT in data centers. *:electricity=* is not restricted to wattage or energy. Should it? Fanfouer (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not referring to it=* for the activity, but the quantity. It should be at least eg it:load:electricity=* , however there would theoretically be inconsistency with cooling:load=* depending on how that's developed. Kovposch (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

cooling:*=* isn't defined for different forms and energy. And you would be inventing *:electricity=* for many attributes.

Is it a problem? Fanfouer (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

plant:storage=* is proposed, but it would be plant:storage:electricity=* (you need to propose *:storage:thermal=* too? Or it's in capacity=* ? Indeed why not use "capacity" for both), not plant:electricity=* Kovposch (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

storage:electricity=* shouldn't exist as electricity is almost never stored. storage:chemical=* or storage:thermal=* are fine. However it's proposed, I took it as an example to support the idea to not use input:*=* for this kind of aggregate at upper level than where the activity actually takes place (here, at servers level). Fanfouer (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Can rating=* or it prefixed/suffixed be used ? Kovposch (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so, rating=* implies a transfer through something Fanfouer (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The word is only defined as "set of rated values and operating conditions" https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-16-11

Unrelated to here, it took some shortcuts by not naming from apparent power. Key:rating is inconsistent by allowing watt. Kovposch (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If I got you well, you mean using it like compute:rating=* (or whatever word we use in place for compute) to state which electricity wattage is dedicated to compute in the datacenter? Fanfouer (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Does anything prevent using rating=* then ? Substations don't count auxiliary and cooling, only transformers. Kovposch (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain the interpretation of "load"? Is IT load not close to "heating load" for "the power demanded by a group of consumers classified according to their particulars, and characteristics"?

That's it, yes Fanfouer (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What's the problem then? Kovposch (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Compute power is only a part of the load (data centers not only have "heating load", but also lighting and cooling load as well), so it needs to be read in the key's name related to it. Fanfouer (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

But it's originally data_center:power:load=* (with data_center:*=* meaning it's about data)

Anyway, there may be more problems with "load" vs capacity, in terms of cooling load vs capacity. For data, load may refer to what's used, and some capacity might be unused. So *:capacity=* could be better.

Kovposch (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

data_center:*=* only means it's about data centers, not strictly about computing inside data centers. data_center:power:load=* includes computing, but also auxiliairies and cooling. load is not IT load nor cooling load. They are all loads, but different. I understand your point about capacity but wonder if it is suitable in our case. Capacity is often used for a number of discrete slots available. This doesn't make load more relevant but we should seek for a third word. Fanfouer (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Output heat

Data centers are increasingly seen as a possible source of heat, for cities or industries nearby. As we deal with input power in this proposal, I would find interesting to introduce output:hot_water=* that would indicate how much heat power we could expect out of the whole facility Fanfouer (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I see existing tags generator:output:hot_water=*, plant:output:hot_water=*, and a few power:output:hot_water=*, but no output:hot_water. Same for generator:output:heat=* and plant:output:heat=*. By that logic, shouldn't we use data_center:output:hot_water=*? Zorun (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

generator:output:hot_water=* is proposed to be replaced by more generic output:hot_water=*, let's not introduce similar specific keys Fanfouer (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)