Proposal talk:Substation nodes extension
Confusion entre distribution
et minor_distribution
?

transformer=main
has been approved so no confusion between distribution and minor_distribution any moreFanfouer (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 proposetransformer=minor_distribution
, and redefinetransformer=distribution
to be consistent withsubstation=*
. ---- 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 tosubstation=distribution
,substation=minor_distribution
andtransformer=distribution
. I realised thatsubstation=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
andsubstation=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 tosubstation=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 astransformer=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 introducetransformer=minor_distribution
or I would prefer to no longer allowsubstation=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 limitsubstation=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 valuestransformer=distribution;minor_distribution
. If the distribution or street cabinets are tagged with separate nodes or areas one can distinguish these withman_made=street_cabinet
as they only contain switchgear to low voltage end users (? is this always ) andpower=switchgear
for distribution switchgear in distribution cabinets andsubstation=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 astransformer=auto
. So I removed compatibility betweensubstation=distribution
andtransformer=distribution
. - However,
substation=distribution
inman_made=street_cabinet
nodes is a thing and should be distinguished fromsubstation=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=*
orpower=transformer
on areas would lead to confusion issues betweenpower=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 othertransformer=*
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 usetransformer=distribution
for that. Could try to "fix" it by adding egtransformer=major_distribution
to match withtransformer=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 intransformer=*
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 aspower=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 withsubstation=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 justsubstation=minor_distribution
withtransformer=distribution
. Othersubstation=*
values are made incompatible with anytransformer=*
, so those can only be mapped as areas with nodes inside withtransformer=*
. With one exception though,substation=distribution
(on an node) withtransformer=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 oftransformer=yes
is discouraged. Having in mind thatsubstation=*
withouttransformer=*
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 withsubstation=distribution
and node inside withtransformer=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 atransformer=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)
- No,
- If I understand correctly, the changes to be made on
transformer=*
would be:- move
transformer=distribution
andtransformer=traction
totransformer=main
to be consistent with other roles and particularly with newesttransformer=auxiliary
.
I like this, it eliminates confusion and the need for
transformer=minor_distribution
. Don't forget to make the description oftransformer=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 deprecatetransformer=distribution
by replacing the tag or just discourage it's use ? --Bert Araali (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- move
- 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 atransformer=*
and doesn't imply by default that a transformer is present. If one wants to provide more detail one can addtransformer=*
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
towindings: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)
- Let me add a final note: There's
- It seems a good approach to keep both
- So I think we agree here, except for
- (The topic of allowable tag combinations should really be moved to a new section.) Won't
- That's right, I've mistaken
- I agree with Kovposch here.
- 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)
- Sorry @Penegal: to go on in English. The page doesn't use
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)