Proposed features/Substation functions

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Substation functions proposal
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: fanfouer
Tagging: substation=*
Applies to: node area
Definition: Propose to split substation's network hierarchy and functions in some new keys and existing substation=*.
Drafted on: 2018-12-26
RFC start: 2018-12-30
Vote start: 2019-03-09
Vote end: 2019-03-23

Rationale

The existing substation=* key is currently shared between power=substation and pipeline=substation objects to give details of a given substation role inside the network it is part of. Some of its approved values like transmission and distribution regard the network hierarchy and less used others like converter and measurement regard the functions a substation can fulfill in a given network.
We do have issues to describe both the functions and the hierarchy of a single substation with a single key. A compression substation can either be at the transmission or distribution level.
OSM needs a better tagging model to be able to describe the hierarchical level and the functions installed in a given substation without using any ; list as a key value.
Currently, there is the substation=generation tag for substations dedicated to power plants.

Most of substations are described with voltage=* in OSM but it should be carefully used. It is currently recommended to mention the highest voltage in the substation at least, then a single voltage value can independently mean there is no transformer or there are lower voltage running there. This must be said voltage=* is comfort tagging for render as it eases the colour choice based on the presumed substation size upon its highest voltage.
As any other aggregated value (like frequency=*, phases=*...) coming from hosted features in the substation, voltage=* should be an internal feature property only and this is out of the scope of this proposal. Nevertheless, voltage=* isn't used as a reliable information for substations here.

Network hierarchy

Power network hierarchy.png
This tree shows how each level interact with other in a standard network architecture.
Despite some definitions refer to electricity or power only, this hierarchy corresponds to both power and pipeline activities.

  • Generation (601-01-06) : Conversion of energy from one form to another.
  • Transmission (601-01-09) : Bulk transfer of power or fluid across a network from production to consumption places.
  • Distribution (601-01-10) : Adaptation and transfer of power or fluid to customers inside an area of consumption.
  • Traction (605-01-06) : Industrial process to adapt network power to be usable for public transports especially for electric trains.
  • Delivery (601-02-33) : Individual customer delivery interface from distribution network. Some big customers can have their own delivery point due to heavy and not industrial usage.

Some additional levels are defined in OSM for sake of detailed mapping :

  • minor distribution : connecting a small group of customers to the main distribution grid.
  • industrial : For any industrial heavy use of power or gas, when big facilities are directly connected to networks for their own usage. Both distribution and transmission networks can feed industrial substations. Industrial substations connect public networks to private installation where several private delivery points can be found.

Processes in a substation

Processes in a substation refer to activities and goals it has been built to achieve.
They can depend of substance running in the network: you transform power voltage and you compress gas.

  • Transformation (601-01-08) : Step up or step down voltage or current of electricity.
  • Compensation (603-04-28) : Action to optimise the transfer of reactive power in a given network. This is done with the help of power=compensator.
  • Conversion (601-01-07) : Action to change the frequency of voltage of the power transiting in a network. This is done with the help of power=converter. See AC / DC conversion on transmission network for instance.
  • Compression : Rising pressure of a gas as to prepare it for transmission over long distances or for a special industrial process.
  • Switching (605-01-02) : Routing electricity or fluids thought a switch yard (or a valve set), with and without transformation or compression
  • Inspection (426-14-02) : All actions needed to check network installations status, mainly not in operation and without dismantling.
  • Measurement : Get representative figures about a phenomenon by using sensors and detectors installed directly on running network assets

Proposal

Two proposals regarding substation topic has already been reviewed :

Processes

It is proposed to keep in existing substation=* the values referring to a hierarchical level only and send the other possibilities in sub-keys.
The main benefit for OSM will be ability to describe both functions and network hierarchy level on all power and pipeline substations

This proposal will introduce some new and optional keys to describe the functions fullfield by one and each substation:


They are currently proposed with two values yes and no
This may be possible to extend each of them with dedicated and more precise proposal later.
It's also possible to extend substation namespace with additional processes as long as they appear in production.

Using one optional key for each process ease quality assurance and validation, substation:compression=* should not be compatible with power=substation for instance.
There is no compatibility issues between hierarchy levels of substation=* key and processes.

Special use cases

Some particular usages may require specific values, like street lighting or electric cars power supplies dedicated substations.
It is currently chosen to not clutter substation=* key with particular and often private delivery usages.
Use cases like street lighting should be addressed with power=substation + substation=delivery + usage=street_lighting but it's out of the scope of this proposal

Renewable power or gas sources aren't different from common generation places. substation=generation is suitable for facilities designed to step-up voltage or pressure as to send the generated power or gas into existing networks.
There is no point to distinguish the renewable or intermittent property on the substation itself. Such information should be visible on the corresponding power=plant surrounding or involving the generation substation.

Concrete benefits

  • Ability to indicate AC/DC conversion or not in substation=traction substations with substation:conversion=*. Currently it's not possible whereas trains systems not always run with DC power.
  • Indicate a substation=distribution site contains power conversion ability for proposed Low Voltage DC network with substation:conversion=*. Currently substation=conversion implies substation=transmission only.
  • Indicate a (transmission mainly) substation doesn't involve transformers and it's not required to look for them in any (possibly hidden, at least indoor) place, with substation:transformation=no. Currently, all transmission substations are supposed to host transformers while a very few of them actually don't. voltage=* is not reliable for that, according to rationale.
  • Distinguish dedicated power generation plant substations with substation=generation from current substation=transmission. According to Rationale, power plants can actually produce low voltage power with distribution grid direct connection. substation=transmission isn't always suitable for them.
  • Share equivalent transmission, distribution and delivery concepts between power and pipelines.
  • Introduced processes keys can be easily completed with any new process defined in the future (not currently known nor defined). Values can be improved as soon as the knowledge get better regarding the existing ones also (like what is done for converter on distribution grids edges). This proposal introduce a kind of framework for power/pipeline processes and don't lock things since IEC definitions are exhaustive for current industrial state of the art only.

Tagging

Following the definitions in rationale chapter, the proposed tagging is established as follow.
On every object with power=substation or pipeline=substation, without changing the meaning nor the compatible OSM features, use the according tags :

List of possible substation=* levels
Key Value Comment
substation transmission A transmission substation is a substation whose main function is to connect transmission lines or pipes transmitting power or substance between areas. It is suggested to use this value for electrical substations handling voltages above 100 kV. Substations collecting power from one or more generators of a power plant should be considered to be of generation level.
distribution A distribution substation is a substation whose main function is to feed distribution networks inside a given an area. For electrical substations, the highest voltage level will typically be lower than 100 kV.
minor_distribution A minor distribution substation connects a small group of individual customers to a whole distribution network. The minor distribution substation adapt the power or the fluid for its last mile travel to domestic customers.
generation A substation located in or next to a power plant and exclusively designed to step up the voltage or the pressure as to send the substance or the power in a transmission or distribution network.
industrial Electrical or pipeline substations may be found inside large industrial plants such as refineries and steel mills.
traction A traction substation (605-01-06) is a substation whose main function is to supply a traction system (railways, trams and/or trolleybuses). They are often located near a railway.
delivery A delivery substation (601-02-33) is intended for individual customers with domestic but heavy usage of power or gas
transition A transition station sometimes referred to as transition yard. This is not a real substation but a fenced-off area with cable or pipes terminals where an underground cable or pipe connects to an overhead power line or overground pipeline. It comprises no active components such as switches, valves or transformers. If the cable terminals are located in the tower itself (no fenced area on the ground) don't tag this as a substation. Use the attribute location:transition=yes on the tower instead.

And we can use some of functions described below :

List of applicable processes and default values by sort of substation
Process Default for power=substation Default for pipeline=substation Comment
substation:transformation=* yes - Transformation is only available for power substations and most of them are containing power=transformer features
substation:compensation=* no - Compensation is only available for power substations and most of them are not provided with power=compensator features
substation:conversion=* no - Conversion is only available for power substations and most of them are not provided with power=converter features
substation:compression=* - no Compression is only available for pipeline substations and most of them are not provided with compressor features
substation:switching=* yes yes Switching is available for both power and pipeline substations. Most of them are provided with power=switch or pipeline=valve features
substation:inspection=* yes yes Inspection is available for both power and pipeline substations. Any power line have inspection bays and pipeline facilities are often provided with pipeline=inspection_gauge ends.
substation:measurement=* yes yes Measurement is available for both power and pipeline substations. Many operators install monitoring devices or sensors to get real time figures of running network.

Edition management

Keys to be replaced

Let's consider the following existing keys and their replacement.
There are less than 2 000 objects to retag, out of more than 300 000 existing power substation and 7 000 existing pipeline substations.

Obsolete tag Usage volumetry Used for ? New tag(s) to use
substation=converter 1037 on 2018-12-28 A substation in charge of power conversion in a transmission network substation=transmission + substation:conversion=yes
A substation in charge of power conversion in a distribution network substation=distribution + substation:conversion=yes
substation=compensation 67 on 2018-12-28 A compensator substation in a power transmission network substation=transmission + substation:compensation=yes
substation=compression 451 on 2018-12-28 A substation with a compressor in a transmission network substation=transmission + substation:compression=yes
A substation with a compressor connecting a gas plant to a transmission network substation=generation + substation:compression=yes
substation=measurement 17 on 2018-12-28 A substation dedicated to fluid measurement in a network substation:measurement=yes
substation=inspection_gauge 58 on 2018-12-28 A substation some network edges disconnected as to allow punctual inspection substation:inspection=yes

Affected pages

Examples

Photo Tagging Note
Gas substation delivery.jpg

pipeline=substation
substation=delivery
man_made=street_cabinet
street_cabinet=gas
operator=GRDF

As mentioned in IEC 601-02-33, a delivery point connect an individual customer to distribution network. Here is a cabinet hosting a delivery substation for a domestic customer with heavy use of gas.
No need to add substation:measurement=yes since it's the default value for pipeline=substation.
See area 229597405

power=substation
substation=generation
operator=EDF
voltage=400000
barrier=fence

A substation dedicated to power plant connection and power injection to grid. Have a look to the plant relation.
See area 312728271

power=substation
substation=transmission
substation:conversion=yes
building=service
operator=Inelfe

A power converter building designed to feed France-Espagne HVDC link from AC 400 kV French grid. The substation is at the transmission level and hosts power converters.
See area 86344183

power=substation
substation=transmission
substation:transformation=no
substation:switching=no
substation:measurement=no
operator=RTE

The simplest transmission substation in France. Several 400kV transmission lines are connected but there are no transformers, no switches and no measurement sensors on bays.

Then it's useful to split functions from hierarchy level since this is a transmission substation like any other of this kind without standard equipments we use to find there.

See area 118387083

power=substation
substation=transmission
substation:transformation=no
operator=RTE

An apparently standard transmission substation which doesn't hosts transformers at all. Now it's sure that voltage=* mention the only voltage there and not only the highest value.
French traction power substation.jpg area 461416673
power=substation
substation=traction
(substation:conversion=no)
location=outdoor
name=Sous-station de Ventabren
voltage=25000
operator=SNCF
25kV traction substation with 2 auto-transformers. No power lines feed this substation except the contact line 25kV feeder going along train tracks.
Karlsruhe Traction Current Converter Plant.JPG area 154070456
power=substation
substation=traction
substation:conversion=yes
name=Bahnstromumformerwerk Karlsruhe
voltage=110000;15000
operator=DB Energie GmbH
start_date=1957
Traction substation with two 26.5 MW Motor–generator-sets. Power is taken from the 110 kV 50 Hz 3-phase-grid and converter to 110 kV 16,7 Hz single-phase current, which is transmitted to other substation, but also transformed to 15 kV power to be fed in the overhead lines. Energy flow can be from the national grid to the railway grid or vice-versa.

Vote

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 28 votes for, 30 votes against and 3 abstentions.

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Not good for the power mappers --Abruzzzo (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --HillWithSmallFields (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mygeomatic (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Carto'Cité (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --hendrik-17(talk) 18:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Buchanan (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. You've started the voting to end an unfavorable discussion for you. This is vile! --Svensson (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Half-baked. Despite the proposal is lengthy and therefore looks well-thought many issues were not addressed.--Steenbuck (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I respectably disagree. All answers were provided on Talk with examples and asks for elaboration. Fanfouer (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lmagreault (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Besides the issues mentioned on the talk page some additional ones came to my mind. First, the defaults: Especially with indoor facilities these can lead to problems when there are no other details known other than the fact that there's a substation. Even though the mapper has no knowledge and also no means to gain it, the data in OSM combined with the defaults would say that the substation would for example contain a transformer. Second, compensation substations like this one: substation=compensation is needed for these cases. substation=distribution is clearly wrong in this case as the substation provides no distribution function. --TOGA (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion goes on Talk Fanfouer (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. A good proposal able to fix the ambiguity between function and hierarchy for a substation. I add that this proposal is rather flexible and can easily accept some changes in the future. --Benoît (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
How should this work out? Changes need a new voting because somebody demands a literal understanding.--Constantino (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
See my point on Talk:Namespace#.3B-lists_vs_namespacing_and_yes.2Fno_values Fanfouer (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pyrog (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Atabaraud (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Oberaffe (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Would lead to massive retaggings.--Constantino (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion goes on Constantino talk page. Fanfouer (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. As per TOGA.--Pezhman (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Why should oil / gas pipeline facilities be mixed up with electrical substations?--Chazanov (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Because that's already established and need to be reinforced. Fanfouer (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Nearly all #Concrete_benefits are red herrings, the usecases can all be done with the current tagging scheme.
  1. ) When the voltage of substation=traction is in the DC range (750–3000 V), a conversion is implicit. All modern railway electrification schemes use AC (15 / 25 kV), which don't need conversion. Implicit things must not be tagged!
  2. ) Low Voltage DC networks are currently _just fictional_. When built, they will probably use existing substations, but add a new power=converter. So they can be tagged just like any existing DC converter station currently in OSM.
  3. ) substation=generation for step-up substations at power plants is in use since 2014. It's not OK to prop up a proposal with somebody else's ideas.
  4. ) Share equivalent transmission, distribution and delivery concepts between power and pipelines. This is not beneficial at all, only adds complexity.

So where are the benefits? The above ones are made-up and either no benefits or not invented here.--N.plath (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion goes on N.plath Talk page. Fanfouer (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Would lead to massive retaggings and other severe problems.--Wambacher (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion goes on Wambacher talk page.Fanfouer (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See these arguments --Norcross (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Protoxenus (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I am uncomfortable with the speed at which new and extremely detailed tagging regarding power distribution is introduced into OSM. Perhaps with the exception of seamarks, power infrastructure is now the most specialized topic in OSM, and laymen cannot even begin to understand the complexity of tagging. I fear that it won't be long until people start mapping circuit diagrams. Who is supposed to understand all this any more? A power station is not a power=station because that is discouraged and was anyway never used for power stations, just for distribution substations. What used to be a sub_station is now a substation. The page for power=plant begins with "A power station ..." but is now supposed to be mapped together with power=generator (provided you know exactly where in the facility the generators sit). A power=transformer is a thing that sits somewhere in a substation and you can only map it if you have the keys to the building... I have a feeling there are only four or five people left who understand power tagging in OSM, and this proposal makes it worse, not better. I'm not saying we cannot have any tagging of power infrastructure in OSM but we cannot aim to match the inner workings of power installations, just like we don't map where in the supermarket the Corn Flakes are located. --Woodpeck (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    As someone who has actually mapped way the cereal aisle of a supermarket, I also feel intimidated by this proposal. Can someone clarify on the discussion page whether this proposal will have any effect on the ability for nonspecialist field mappers and armchair mappers to contribute more basic information about power infrastructure that they encounter? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --4rch (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See these arguments --TheBlackMan (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. mixing up power- and pipeline infrastructure --chris66 (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion goes on Chriss66 talk page. Fanfouer (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. per Woodpeck. See for example diagram in Proposed_features/Substation_functions#Network_hierarchy. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --ZZ29 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Olyon (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Clear proposal, making sense as always. --PanierAvide (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --S Frantz (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. (I must not give any reason for voting no) --Dooley (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --DenisHelfer (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I find Woodpecks points reasonable. --Gppes 16:30, 23 March 2019 (CET)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It rationalizes the actual state. --LB3AM (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JacquesLavignotte (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eric B. (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See my points in the Forum. --Druzhba (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Your link is in German while this discussion is in English. That's not fair nor understandable for many voters here Fanfouer (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fanfouer I've made most of these points earlier and in English! But you've decided to ignore them and just start the proposal.--Steenbuck (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that voters are not obligated to provide any explanation at all. Providing any explanation is voluntary. And explanation in German is better than no explanation at all. You should be thankful that people are providing any explanation at all rather than complaining. 22:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Your link is in German while this discussion is in English. That's not fair nor understandable for many voters here Fanfouer (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that voters are not obligated to provide any explanation at all. Providing any explanation is voluntary. And explanation in German is better than no explanation at all. You should be thankful that people are providing any explanation at all rather than complaining. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
not true, if you vote no you should provide a reason. —Dieterdreist (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fanfouer I'm very sorry for not translating my points earlier. Actually I've taken most of them from this proposal's talk page. You now may take a look at them.--Druzhba (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Why not? This is an extremely good Summary of Criticisms for me. All proposals dealing with Energy Infrastructure, I Think, need to be worked out embarrassingly. All Criticisms and Improvements need to be incorporated. The overriding Properties of Energy Infrastructure Cannot be captured by a normal Mapper. All the more so, something like this must be understandable and comprehensible. That is not the Case here. --streckenkundler (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See talk page. --Brömme (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I've worked on the power grid of China. I think this proposal should be improved. --供电系统 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.Not rational to have tag negative attributes--Lilla Elna (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Reasons from experienced users in IRC. --대왕판다 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. multiple reasons --Tubes 21:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Benefits debunked Bytemark (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Renecha (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Benefits debunked --Benny Goodman (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I am against this.--Евреи (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bristow (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bristow Am I correct, that you have made 0 edits to OSM?--Cantuck (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cantuck Sorry but i don't have the same pseudo.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Not all criticisms and improvements have been incorporated.--Cantuck (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I do not vote with "yes" because I cannot call this proposal good. The given benefits are not benefits because they are possible with the existing tags as well: substation=traction implies a conversion von AC to DC if the railway uses DC power from my understanding. In addition, I don't think that it is worth the hassle of retagging to avoid substation=distribution;conversion. It is such a secondary key as vending=* where we are used to live with semicolon separated lists as values. --Nakaner (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. +1 We don't need new tags for traction substations because the information can be derived from the voltage and/or the country.--Stromo (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Marc marc (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Proposal ignores some issues. I agree with many of the comments in Talk. Specifically I don't believe that power=substation and pipeline=substation should be combined, as though they can perform similar functions on similar networks, they are not the same thing. This also seems to need much retagging and will cause confusion for both mappers and consumers in the meantime. --Rivermont (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)