Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Hi! Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way. best regards, Martin P.S: Please change "Experimented users" into "Experienced users" in Simple tagging ;-) 2013/4/6 François Lacombe > Hi, > > Today I've updated the proposal to setup an improvement about power plants > global model. > > Thanks to Vinking81 suggestions concerning solar power, we found some room > for modifications. > > According to that chart: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Power_plant_schema_proposal.png, > source and output power of whole power plants are now specified by tags > plant:source and plant:output. > It helps to check consistency with tags generator:source and > generator:output which are member of the power=plant + type=site relation. > Those power plant values are mainly lists of values separated by ; as it's > widely done in OSM. > > Secondly, it introduce distinguishing of intermediate and output > generators. > Why such a complex thing? > 1 - In some cases (like solar farms, geothermal power plants, combustion > power plans) we'll need to output more than only one kind of power. > plant:output=* would be a list of different powers in use outside the plant. > 2 - To link generators to each other as for mapping several power > conversion steps through several kind of generators. > Output generators must be distinguished from intermediate generators since > they give the total amount of output power. Intermediate generators don't > produce power which can be used outside the power plant at all. > No new tag to make that distinguishing: only output generators have member > role=generator in power=plant relation. > > Output values was added to the generators types table and special roles > table had been reorganized by plant values instead of generators values. > Only generator method remains in that table. Any idea to replace it by a > plant:* tag? > > > I'm aware it's not the smartest way to make those specifications but it > works well (and it's backward compatible with current model). > If you have any suggestion about that, don't hesitate to answer that mail. > > > For the two main power plants configuration (conventional and farm), > simple tagging models are still available and don't care of those > considerations. > Mappers who are confident in advanced tagging models will be able to > improve accuracy of information in OSM. > > > Cheers, > > *François Lacombe* > > francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu > http://www.infos-reseaux.com > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > A site-relation is usually only necessary if not all features of the > "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they are dispersed. I would > strongly recommend keeping it this way. > > +1 Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Thanks François for your great work. One thing: in "PV solar panel" example, you should change generator:type=solar_panel to generator:type=solar_photovoltaic _panel, for consistency with the rest of the proposal. +1 for relations: as written in the proposal, "this advanced tagging is optional, it is allowed to ensure consistency with wind farms, and ease the computing of total power plant rating, by adding all the generator:output:* values of its generator members". It is useful for wind farms, solar fields, hydro dams, and anywhere the power elements are dispersed and without a physical perimeter. Bye Viking81 - Alberto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Hi Martin, Pieren, Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities > (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary > if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they > are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way. > I agree with such a point of view. Nevertheless relations allow us to link generators to the power plant where they're located in. They enable automatic rate computation by adding all individual generators' power for instance. Even if power plant is a single site infrastructure, it may be divided between several buildings and no link would easily be made between generators and power plant output. As I said I'm aware relations are complex objects and they don't seems to be necessarily in conventional power plant mapping at first sight. But it's the only way Don-vip found and I can't find *a better one* to make it work. > P.S: Please change "Experimented users" into "Experienced users" in Simple > tagging ;-) > Sure I'll do :) If you see other Frenglish expressions, please let me know. Thanks alberto for you're useful suggestions too. I'm currently updating examples to match correctly to the rest of proposal. Cheers! -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Hi! 2013/4/6 François Lacombe > Looks fine, but why do we need a relation for single-site facilities >> (examples Fukushima and Themis)? A site-relation is usually only necessary >> if not all features of the "site" are within one closed area, i.e. they >> are dispersed. I would strongly recommend keeping it this way. >> > > I agree with such a point of view. > Nevertheless relations allow us to link generators to the power plant > where they're located in. > They enable automatic rate computation by adding all individual > generators' power for instance. > > Even if power plant is a single site infrastructure, it may be divided > between several buildings and no link would easily be made between > generators and power plant output. > That's exactly my point: if one suggest to use a relation even for a single site infrastructure, he suggest to put the workload from the consumer to the mapper and that's the wrong way. We have a spatial database: if there's a closed way surrounding all the feature you simply don't need a relation to get all the features within, all you need is the closed way. Yes, it is more complicated for the consumer. Yes, it needs more processing. But it is (much) more robust, (much) better visible and easier for the mapper. So do not suggest to put features of a single site into a relation (as you do in some examples). OSM is getting complicated enough. Scaring off new mappers with unnecessary complex schemes doesn't help OSM, it hurts it. Sorry for those clear words, but we have to keep the bar low for mappers. The ones who process our data usually have far more experience than the average mapper. Put the burden on that end that can handle it. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
