Proposal talk:Power supply:schedule

Attribute not Top Level Value

With the current draft it would not be possible to tag a NEMA 5-15 supply as intermittent (since the plug type would be overwritten). Perhaps "power_supply:availability=intermittent" or "power_supply:availability=evenings". Brycenesbitt (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bryce, the proposal in the current state is not working and does not reflect how power_supply=* works. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Weird key name

I'm not so friendly with the power_supply=* key to tag power sockets only.
A power supply refers to a power source which a simple socket is not completely. It may be linked to a source but through a complex and large power grid.
It would be better to get advantage of this proposal to move it to power=socket and define consistent attributes to describe it.

Furthermore, power=* is currently refined with several proposals down there Proposed_features/Power_supports_refinement, Proposed_features/Power_paths_refinement and Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal.
Power generators had been defined with power=generator and power_supply=* is strangely connex to them.

Finally, it's deeply disappointing to set the voting begin date before the debate took place :s Fanfouer (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) I am OK if it is preferred to use power:schedule=... instead of power_supply:schedule=... (2) The proposal is about what the end user experiences, not about how the network is mapped like the others you refer to. I would like to keep the proposal simple and focussed and stick to this issue only to make sure we can reach a conclusion shortly. The proposals don't interfere. (3) The time schedule is according to OSM guidelines. If much discussion is still going on we can extend it. I don't want this to be a proposal that never reaches the voting stage. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)