Proposal talk:Substation nodes extension

Confusion entre distribution et minor_distribution?

Resolved: transformer=main has been approved so no confusion between distribution and minor_distribution any more

Fanfouer (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Salut !

Je remarque que, pour les transfos 20kV/400V, la page utilise parfois transformer=distribution et parfois transformer=minor_distribution, or j’avais cru comprendre que, pour ces transfos, ça devait toujours être transformer=minor_distribution. Qu’en est-il ?

Cordialement. Penegal (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. There's problem with having only transformer=distribution in Key:transformer from Proposed_features/Substation_refinement. Need to propose transformer=minor_distribution, and redefine transformer=distribution to be consistent with substation=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @Penegal: to go on in English. The page doesn't use transformer=minor_distribution, it only refers to substation=distribution, substation=minor_distribution and transformer=distribution. I realised that substation=minor_distribution was introduced after the vote of Proposed_features/Substation_refinement and thus is in use, not approved, explained here but it was intended to solve the distinction of substations which feed consumers and ones which don't. I'm not sure transformers require the same.

Anyway, this proposal should regard both substation=distribution and substation=minor_distribution as they can both be mapped as nodes, and they can both have transformers inside:

• minor_distribution : substations to feed end consumers, with help of distribution transformers
• distribution: substations to change voltage between two section of the grid, with help of distribution transformer (in France we have 20 000 volts -> 15 000 volts step-down auto transformers). I need to add this example. Fanfouer (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

But this violates the definition of transformer=distribution, which is closer to substation=minor_distribution for end consumers Low Voltage. ---- Kovposch (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

transformer=distribution is both suitable for medium voltage to low voltage to consumers and medium voltage 1 to medium voltage 2 transformers. minor_distribution for substations implies there are specific equipment to collect smart meters information or low voltage switching devices in it, it doesn't refer to transformer capabilities actually. Fanfouer (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? I don't know what went on behind the scenes. It says "A distribution transformer transfers power from the distribution system to directly connected electricity consumers. Thus the output voltage is that of the low voltage grid in that region. For example 400/230 volt in Europe or 240/120 volt in the US. If the secondary voltage is above 1 kV it is not a distribution transformer." ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kovposch here. substation=distribution should never be used on a same node as transformer=distribution. substation=distribution does not distribute power directly on low voltage to end users according to our wiki. transformer=distribution according to the wiki is only applicable for low voltage to end users. So one excludes the other, having both on one node is implicitly wrong. To solve this issue one could introduce transformer=minor_distribution or I would prefer to no longer allow substation=distribution to be used on a node. In reality these are mostly larger structures that can be mapped as areas. If you map it as an area one can map the nodes for the transformer(s) inside the area, which can be a combination. Some distribution substations also function as minor distribution within the same fence or building to end consumers. This proposal will not solve this issue of substations that are both distribution and minor distribution. Still it would be a good idea to address the transformer issue and extend it with minor_distribution value, to make it consistent with substations. Actually it is in many cases not the transformer connecting directly to the end consumers but the switchgear located in a distribution cabinet or street cabinet. A single transformer can be both a distribution and minor_distribution transformer to make it even more confusing. So I suggest to limit substation=distribution for closed areas only, power=transformer should also be allowed on areas, as some are very large and it would be interesting to map where different parts or cabinets like the tank, the cooler/heater, taps and their control cabinets are accessible etc... . transformer=minor_distribution as new value for transformer. Transformers who feed both a distribution cabinet as a low voltage distribution network should contain both values transformer=distribution;minor_distribution. If the distribution or street cabinets are tagged with separate nodes or areas one can distinguish these with man_made=street_cabinet as they only contain switchgear to low voltage end users (? is this always ) and power=switchgear for distribution switchgear in distribution cabinets and substation=distribution. --Bert Araali (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's right, I've mistaken transformer=distribution here, transformers converting medium voltage 1 to medium voltage 2 should be tagged as transformer=auto. So I removed compatibility between substation=distribution and transformer=distribution.

However, substation=distribution in man_made=street_cabinet nodes is a thing and should be distinguished from substation=minor_distribution. It's often substations that only contain medium voltage switches (see out of scope 2nd example). They're not always proper areas.

Allowing transformer=* or power=transformer on areas would lead to confusion issues between power=substation (people use to call actual substations as transformers) and quality control won't be able to distinguish correct usage and awkward usage. Mapping transformer as a node doesn't prevent to map peripherals as nodes as well and connecting them with appropriate cables or pipelines.

Introducing transformer=minor_distribution would lead to move 100k objects and will possibly be a no go for many people. In the past consistency versus many object to move doesn't get required consensus. Fanfouer (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(The topic of allowable tag combinations should really be moved to a new section.) Won't transformer=auto being a mechanism be inconsistent in style with other transformer=* being purposes? Are autotransformers not used in those applications? For the subject here, I was only talking about what would be needed if you want to use transformer=distribution for that. Could try to "fix" it by adding eg transformer=major_distribution to match with transformer=minor_distribution if this is desired. ---- Kovposch (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So I think we agree here, except for transformer=* values. I won't change anything in transformer=* for now as to focus discussion on proposed compatibility. Time will come after to propose changes in this particular key with related mass edits Fanfouer (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems a good approach to keep both transformer=* values as power=transformer mapping for review later, however the current value list and definitions have a major impact on it. So maybe it's a better idea to park this proposal for now and start a new one about the transformer values first. We can't address proper tagging with our current portfolio of transformer values. In it's current format this proposal doesn't say anything about the other transformer values being compatible with substation=minor_distribution on a node. With the ever growing amount of minigrids, especially in countries with less extensive and developed public grids we have more variants then just substation=minor_distribution with transformer=distribution. Other substation=* values are made incompatible with any transformer=*, so those can only be mapped as areas with nodes inside with transformer=*. With one exception though, substation=distribution (on an node) with transformer=distribution. transformer=* contains values that describe the purpose or application of a transformer, easy to determine by less electrical savvy people and thus a good approach in my opinion. There still remain though two issues: 1. transformer=auto does not refer to the transformers purpose but to its applied technology, hard if not nearly impossible to determine by common mappers. Our wiki currently says that in cases of doubt the transformer should not be tagged, even the use of transformer=yes is discouraged. Having in mind that substation=* without transformer=* covers this ? Meaning I have no approved consensus to tag a conventional transformer explicitly used for transmission or distribution at medium voltage on a NODE, only on an area, complex and confusing, maybe a good idea to clarify it better with an example? Many industrial users, considered to be "end-consumers" are supplied at medium voltage, minigrids privately owned or public or subgrids are. I would say explicitely that an area with substation=distribution and node inside with transformer=distribution is viable. So I am afraid as it currently stands, although this proposal is very short, it doesn't make much sense to address the compatibility issues for now as long as we don't have a complete transformer tagging portfolio. --Bert Araali (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me add a final note: There's substation=industrial, so your example can get a transformer=industrial. ---- Kovposch (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No, substation=industrial is for industrial applications, not for grid switching and distribution applications. Don't mix this. --Bert Araali (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the changes to be made on transformer=* would be:

• move transformer=distribution and transformer=traction to transformer=main to be consistent with other roles and particularly with newest transformer=auxiliary.

I like this, it eliminates confusion and the need for transformer=minor_distribution. Don't forget to make the description of transformer=main as not necessarily a low voltage transformer supplying end-consumers. transformer=traction could move as well but might remain as a separate application. The new issue here is then, are we going to deprecate transformer=distribution by replacing the tag or just discourage it's use ? --Bert Araali (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

All substation=minor_distribution, substation=distribution, substation=traction, substation=industrial would get main and auxiliary transformers.

Definitively not. Many switching and distribution substations don't have transformers. substation=* can be used without a transformer=* and doesn't imply by default that a transformer is present. If one wants to provide more detail one can add transformer=* but keep in mind that main transformers exist without the need of auxiliary supply. Auxiliary transformers are not only used for transformer auxiliaries, so the use of both tags should be allowed independently from substation tags or separately and in combinations with other transformer tags.--Bert Araali (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• move transformer=auto to windings:configuration=auto.

A big yes --Bert Araali (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this correct? Fanfouer (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Here you go for a separate proposal: Proposed_features/Transformers_classification_refinement Fanfouer (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice ! --Bert Araali (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Involve compensators as well as transformers

Proposal now involves compensator=* used in combination with substation=distribution on nodes only. It is relevant in some countries where voltage_regulator are used on poles for some long range distribution grids (Japan comes to my mind). Let's give it a try Fanfouer (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote ping

Hi @Jnicho02:, @Russss:, @M!dgard:, @Gazer75:, @TagaSanPedroAko: You may be all be interested in this vote.

node relation

Sorry for coming late and the proposal looks fine for the specific scope, but I wanted to point out that there is the proposed type=node relation which can be used to model different features on the same place (e.g. attach to the same pole): node relation —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dieterdreist:, sorry to skip this a bit, and time flies. Thank you for pointing this proposal. To me, we'd better find solution to combine things on nodes and only use relations when things get too complex. I've got no problem to combine substations on poles or cabinets as node so far in France, a relation isn't needed there. I'll provide a few more elements on the proposal, as it can fit in the current discussion about OSM data model refinement introduced at this year SOTM. Fanfouer (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)