Talk:Renewable energy in the United Kingdom
Under discussion
turbines=number
I've tagged some wind farm relations with the number of turbines that I am expecting to see. This has been useful for spotting missing turbine plots plus, very occasionally, it seems that not every planned turbine gets built. Undecided whether to recommend this as a tag yet. Jnicho02 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
keeping up-to-date
These tables are here to drive the effort to find and match objects. There is the slight danger that say, a solar farm's mapping is changed to a relation on OSM and the cross-reference here not updated. I run an extract powered by these tables which will spot that, then I use Overpass to find it again. Long term, once we have found them all, it is possible that the tables might be superfluous and be removed. I'd like to have a discussion before that happens though. Jnicho02 (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
REPD corrections
I am keeping track of repd records that have errors, e.g. a site that has since been replaced by a repowering but not removed from the database. I will pass these back to UK Govt to correct their original data. Jnicho02 (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Should wind farm tracks end in a turbine node?
When plotting a wind farm, should the turbine tracks end in a turbine node or should the turbine node stand apart from the track? Jnicho02 (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
landuse=industrial
I believe that the iD Editor is adding landuse=industrial to solar panels as they are a power=plant. Wind farms are most definitely not landuse=industrial as they are still farmland between the turbines. Is the same thing true for a solar farm? Early marketing puff used to show sheep grazing between the panels, but i'm inclined to believe that the areas are now fenced off and only used for solar. It is still a field with panels on and feels slightly wrong to class it as 'industrial'. Opinions? Jnicho02 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. One advantage of solar panels is that often it is possible to use the ground as pasture (I've actually seen this around Almaraz in Spain). I recently mapped one at Legacy owned by Wrexham Borough Council 722350032
722350032, see link on the way. SK53 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. One advantage of solar panels is that often it is possible to use the ground as pasture (I've actually seen this around Almaraz in Spain). I recently mapped one at Legacy owned by Wrexham Borough Council 722350032
Promoted to advice on Page
These points have been discussed and have led to changes on the main Page. They could be re-opened, but not without good reason. If so, move them out of this section.
Harlock Hill
REPD:ID 2617 "Harlock Hill" and 4177 "Furness/High Winds (Harlock Repowering)" both refer to 2928689
2928689 'Repowering' means replacing older turbines with new ones. So, 4177 suggests that it *is* exactly the same site. Need to check the planning docs and ask REPD to mark 2617 as closed or similar. Jnicho02 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
relation role generator or not?
I include a role=generator for each turbine in a relation. You _could_ follow each node in the relation and see that it is a power:=generator and therefore deduce the role, but if other things are included in the relation (like access tracks) it becomes less obvious. Jnicho02 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Removing zoom 12 weblinks for mapped & repd:id'd generators
I suggest that when something has been mapped with a repd:id and entered in the table that we remove the OSM link to the rough area. This was designed for searching and seems superfluous. Removing them will also reduce overall page size and loading time. SK53 (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Keeping phases/extensions a separate relations
The jury is still out on this one, but the planning docs have wind farms and their extensions as separate entities and I have plotted them as such. Often, the type of turbine changes, and it may be that other Government records are attributed to the separate parts of a wind farm. Or not. I'm willing to change my mind in the future but don't have enough information yet. Jnicho02 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I came across one the other day where it is impossible to identify the phases 714799366 714799366, so I added both repd:id to the plant enclosing way, and in turn have added the same way to both entries in the table. I had a scan back through Sentinel imagery & it looks as though both phases were built as one: or at least there is nothing which matches the map on the planning docs. In other cases (Asfordby on the former colliery site) there are quite clearly separate phases (e.g., labelling of electrical gear) but without a ground survey hard to separate them. SK53 (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I came across one the other day where it is impossible to identify the phases 714799366
- Exactly! I was hoping this one would sort itself out as we went along. It might come into play if someone wanted to enter the turbine models, as the turbines for an extension will probably be a newer model to the originals...or, energy data elsewhere might refer to them as separate entities. I'm currently thinking that I will merge more of them. Some sites, although very close to each other, are definitely different entities. Others very near to each other are actually a single entity and the extension has it's own name. Conversely, I've been able to separate some by looking at planning documents. Jnicho02 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I am now merging phases into single sites where it is obvious that it is owned and run as the same operation, "Xyz" and "Xyz Extension". Sites being adjacent does *not* mean they get merged automatically because there are often groups of separate wind farm operations at a location. Jnicho02 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)