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 <francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> > 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
