From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Including identifiers used in official databases

Is there any work/interest on including identifiers used in official databases (such as eGRID, E-PRTR, and the EU-ETS)? I've worked quite a bit with these databases and would be willing to set up some sort of automated system that could help with the matching process. --ChrisDavis 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be power=generator

Resolved: power=generator was refined in the power generation refinement proposal accepted June 11, 2013 Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be power=generator, as decided in the voting? -- Fröstel 12:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuel types

Should one use the tag 'gas' or 'natural_gas'? - unsigned

Power output

Resolved: Let's use generator:output=* Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the power output is available (e.g. by looking on wikipedia), is it worth having some sort of power:output = 1.5GW tag?

I'm not sure if power:output alone is interesting. Wikipedia link would be better. Also it would be easy to export power:output from linked wikipedia page --Jttt 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deprecating 'man made='

Resolved: Ok. Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So are we deprecating the various 'man made=' tags or not? Seems like a good idea to deprecate them to me, but are those supported by renderers at all?

I've edited Template:Map Features:man made to say they are 'probably' deprecated.

-- Harry Wood

Editing the wiki won't help you - you probably want to edit something like osm-map-features instead. Ojw 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I like man_made=power_wind and the others. Is there an alternative to tag nuclear-,coal-,wind- powered generators in future? --Bahnpirat 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Alternative? Yeah Tag:power=generator (on the page here) -- Harry Wood 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The renderer doesn't work for "power=generator" and "power_source=wind" - is there a possibility to accelerate the support for this tag? -- Schusch 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is done - renderer support works for some month now -- Schusch 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominal power

Resolved: Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

All kinds of generators have a nominal power (whereas for different physical kinds of plants with the same nominal power the output of energy during the same period of time may be or is completely different) - what about a tag for the nominal power? power_nominal-power? -- Schusch 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All tag like generator:output=* or plant:output=* are for nominal power only. Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Another power source

Resolved: Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me with the English name. There are power plants planned in the deserts, where the sun is reflected by lots of mirrors to head an oil container, the oil heats water, the steam drives a generator. How is this called? How to tag? --Lulu-Ann 12:50, 12 October 2010 (BST)

That would be generator:source=solar, generator:method=thermal, generator:output:electricity=yes. TomChance 11:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag:power_source=wind vs Tag:generator:source=wind

Resolved: power_source=* isn't used anymore. Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The first have a rendering on the second not... So, which one should we use ? Otourly 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps both, if you'd prefer. I've filed a bug, just waiting for somebody to update the stylesheet - TomChance 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Four reactors in one nuclear power plant?

Resolved: Sure, one power=generator per reactor building and enclosed in power=plant Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If a single power plant has four reactors then should one tag the individual reactors as power=generator, or should the combined power station be tagged as such? If it is the individual reactors then how does one tag the overall plant and vice versa? For example Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant. This question could be generalised to other power plants that include multiple actual generators. Personally I think we should always have a suitable tag to wrap around the entire facility (be it a solar station, wind farm, coal power station or whatever) which can link to the relevant Wikipedia article as well as suitable tags for the individual devices such as individual turbines or whatever. PeterIto 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. For hospitals and schools the One feature, one OSM element good practice principle is to have a containing outer area, then for the hyper detail we just use building tags. I think the same should apply here. One power=generator tag on an encompassing area -- Harry Wood 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
no. I would tag *only* the building where the actual generator is located as power=generator. This allows to tag the actual electrical output to each unit of a power plant. Next to the generator building there's the power=station. And all of it lies on the power plant's ground which is then tagged as landuse=industrial + wikipedia=Fukushima_II_Nuclear_Power_Plant + name=Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant ... Tagging that whole area as power=generator wouldn't allow tagging all the generator details. For example there are mixed power plants with one unit fired with coal and the next unit combined fired with oil + gas. --Claudius 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
yes/no. If inadequate info is available use power over the whole area, once adequate info is there change the area to landuse=industrial and refine the use of power=*. Initially Fukushima was mapped just as buildings & was difficult to find, even with just a node for power. I've followed this advice (1st part) for Onagawa, anyone is welcome to refine, but the imagery is pretty poor. [Note, I have reservations about doing this for solar farms which often have dual use (power and agriculture)]. -- SK53 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
no. I agree with Claudius arguments. But we need a power=* tag for that. According to Wikipedia, the most logical tag should be power=station. The problem is, this tag is used today with the same meaning as a substation, and this causes a lot of confusion. Maybe could we use a new power=plant tag for that, and deprecate power=station once and for all ? --Don-vip 22:37, 26 May 2011 (BST)
I have started a proposal that deals with this issue. --Don-vip 01:55, 8 June 2011 (BST)
Sure you have to use power=generator on each reactor building and power=plant on the whole nuclear power plant perimeter (thoses facilities are often enclosed in several fenced perimeters).
French nuclear power plants are currently under refarming of this kind. Have a look here : Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How to tag power plants which are not active / under construction / shutdown

There is a tag disused=yes to show, if a power plan is deactivated. But how to tag a power plant which is not actived yet? Walterschloegl 08:51, 17 April 2011 (BST)

generator:output:electricity=0 + note=not activated yet ? --Don-vip 22:41, 26 May 2011 (BST)

"Osmotic"? What is it?

Hello. I'm planning to tag a Power Plant that uses fuel-oil both to produce electricity and potable water from seawater. It uses a chemical procedure called "inverse osmosis", so I'm a bit dubious about how do I need to tag it. Any help?

I'm not quite clear what this thing is doing. It sounds like you are describing a desalination plant that has its own oil-fuelled generator to power the osmotic desalination process. So if the plant generates its electricity from oil, and uses that to power the osmotic process to desalinate the seawater, and exports the remaining electricity to the grid (i.e. the electricity generation is part of its function and not just part of the process to achieve its function as a desalination plant) then it should be tagged as generator:source=oil and generator:method=combustion or whater it does with the oil (if known). The osmotic process is simply to desalinate water, and has nothing to do with the generation of energy. If, on the other hand, it is using both oil and an osmotic process to generate the electricity (which would be highly unusual) then you're a bit stuck because the schema doesn't really support multiple fuels. You could try generator:source=oil;osmotic or leave a note explaining it. TomChance 15:33, 18 April 2011 (BST)
Ok, I'll tag it just as a Power Plant, and skip the hydraulic part of it altogether. Thank you. --Jonay 17:31, 18 April 2011 (BST)

Methane Plants?

What set of tags are we using for power plants that generate electricity by burning methane collected from nearby/co-located garbage dumps?

Looking at the values currently in use for generator:method and generator:source doesn't turn up anything, but using the combination of landuse=landfill and generator:source=biogas would make sense. An alternative for tagging a generator that is physically separate from the landfill could be to use generator:source=landfill gas. --ChrisDavis (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


Resolved: No need of a method for wind source yet Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a suggested value for the tag generator:method. Maybe windforce? The term is actually used by the industry ( Gilbert54 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What what I can tell, generator:source=wind is the main way that wind turbines are designated. If you look at the stats for generator:source, there are over 98,000 instances of this tag, while the stats for generator:method shows that there are only 400 instances of generator:method=wind_turbine. --ChrisDavis (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There's not need of a method with wind power since there are not so many different kind of generator in this field of knowledge. Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


Resolved: Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is marked as onRelation=yes in the infobox. Which type of relation (except multipolygon, which is covered by onArea=yes) would the tag be used on? --Tordanik 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean no other type of relation. I will correct the infobox. Fanfouer (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Smaller generators: suggested tagging scheme

Unresolved: All generators are mapped the same (that's my point--achadwick (talk)). They may be enclosed in power=plant (that doesn't help--achadwick (talk)). Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since power generation is likely to move to a more distributed model, with consequently smaller generators, the current tagging model may need to be updated. It's currently suited for fairly huge standalone landmarks, but how should it be updated to cover smaller generators which are part of the fabric of a city and thus relatively unnoticeable and generally rooftop-level? Presently the 'worst offending' tag is {power_source,generator:source}=wind: visible at z15 in the default rendering even for little ones like the ones on top of Aston University's new residences [1]. That scale is fine for standalone turbines, or ones which are part of a huge wind farm, but pretty silly for relatively tiny ones.

What's the best way to inform rendering software that a generator is a relatively small landmark (albeit still useful close to, should one look up and notice)? We could tag the height of the object, but in this case it would be exceptionally difficult to measure.

--achadwick (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Power generation refinement was accepted, power=generator doesn't represent power plant anymore. [...] --Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh shit. 'power=generator' used to be documented as "A Place where power is generated" (from the history)? I didn't realize; I thought something was amiss.
Stating the obvious, documenting something in the wiki doesn't change the intent of existing objects in the database. power=plant has only been documented since June 2013, so there are probably thousands of power=generator objects representing large power plants in the db. I sincerely hope these are being converted to the new schema. Out of interest, what working groups and coordinated efforts are in progress to do this?
Still, at least the change here addresses this topic's concern ☺
--achadwick (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure they have to be converted to the new schema. It's in progress but it will need some time to be completed, as usual.
There is no dedicated coordination group. I'm writing proposals with System-users-3.svgpolderrunner (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), some other users are giving feedback about it. It's up to each mapper to convert features to accepted schemas if they suit them.
I don't know any tool to monitor this migration. I've asked to add time graph in tag-info to follow tag volumetry day-by-day or month-by-month but didn't get any answer so far. Fanfouer (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It map devices which convert a source power into output one. Several generators may be enclosed in power=plant but it's not necessarily. Thus you can map small and bigger generators the same way. Fanfouer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It clarifies matters a little and the plant/generator split seems good to me, but does not solve the issue of different generators being of different sizes or to put it another way of differing importance as landmarks. This might not be easily verifiable (unless anyone has any bright ideas?), so it might be wisest to drop it and concentrate only on the power=generator/power=plant division. As far as renderers are concerned, enclosure is not sufficient to decide rendering.
This would seem also to indicate a need for the default rendering to be adjusted to show all generators at only rather high zooms, and plants at their existing level. Do you agree? If so, let's chase this over in openstreetmap-carto's issues (Andy brought up at SOTM2013 that he wants to remove some icons from the map to reduce clutter ☺). Give me a nod and I'll write it up.
This topic not quite resolved yet, just needs a link to an open openstreetmap-carto issue demonstrating that we're taking this seriously.
--achadwick (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok to say the render for power isn't complete / user-friendly and need refinement as the rest of the mapping process. I didn't open any issue on openstreetmap-carto since I thought it was only experiment. Maybe we should wait for transmission to be adopted too to update renderes sustainabily, ok ?
In the meantime, would you like to propose some render modification or start a thread on mailing list about that ? Fanfouer (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes to help with the transition, and an explanation of the change

It would be useful to include a prominent {{Note}} documenting the change from using this for (typically huge) power plants, to the practice of using it for individual items of generating equipment (and potentially quite minor ones). A section explaining the transition would be useful too. Perhaps something like the warning and history I recently added to Tag:power=station to expand on a previous "deprecation" and the reasoning would be appropriate. I don't think we should hide the fact that things are in flux, and we should give clear positive advice to mappers explaining how to manage the change. --achadwick (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

generator:type for nuclear reactors

By now generator:type for nuclear reactor is used to specify particular nuclear reactor model (e.g. VVER-1000 instead of just VVER), while others (like combustion) indicate type of the reactor. Shouldn't particular model be placed in some other tag? Maybe it would be better to propose some other tag for it (like power:generator:model)? --Keder (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)