Hi!
Am 08.04.2013 um 00:03 schrieb François Lacombe
<francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu>:
> Hi again :)
>
>
> 2013/4/7 Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Actually how could that happen?
>
> I don't have example, I was only guessing.
>
> Assuming 2 different power plants with output generators in each (and links
> for power exchanges between both) would help us to solve that kind of issue.
> => All right, my objection was stupid!
Lets call it discussion, then it's not stupid anymore ;-)
>> I was about to suggest the same as Martin Koppenhöfer: additional tag on the
>> generator itself. Putting the generators of a plant into categories
>> (category A: output, category B: intermediate) by using a relation sounds to
>> me like this: [1] .
>
> I'll update proposal with following generator tag values: generator=output or
> generator=intermediate (generator=* key doesn't exist).
I like readable tags. When I read generator=output I have no clue about its
meaning. Every generator has output. So I definitively would add the word plant
there anywhere.
> Thus all generators of a power plant would be added to an hypothetic
> power=plant relation with role=generator.
> This will be convenient to make the distinguishing on generator's tags and
> only there.
What could be the role of a generator if not generator? You wrote "all
generators ... with role=generator" - so the role does not have any meaning.
Then drop it.
Also: if I simply add all the perimeters of a multi-site plant to the relation,
I don't need anything else in the relation. It would also be more robust. Think
of Joe Mapper who adds a newly built substation within the perimeter of the
plant. A relation was created earlier by a different mapper. Joe doesn't
know/care about the relation so he only adds the substation. If the relation
only contains the perimeters it is still complete and the new substation is now
part of the plant. If the relation has to carry all of the features it is now
broken.
And furthermore: how can we find such broken relations?
Of course if there is no clear perimeter (e.g. wind parks) the features
themselves have to be added.
>> Same goes for the substations by the way.
>
> It's different for substations.
> No categorization for them.
My point was more like: if we have the perimeters we don't need this
information about the substations. But see below!
> Nevertheless they could easily be placed off the perimeter of a single site
> power plant. How to make links in that particular case?
Is it still part of the plant?
> In France for instance, substations and power grid are operated by RTE and
> power plants by different companies.
So they are two different features. A plant and a substation.
> Have a look to Tricastin nuclear power plant (biggest one I mean) :
> http://goo.gl/maps/HcyIf
> Power plant perimeter is between Rhone river and publicly accessed road D459
> with 4 reactor buildings. Substation is behind a private uranium enrichment
> plant (big white buildings) which is not part of the power plant so we can't
> put a whole closed way around that stuff.
Does it really belong to the plant? Or is the "output" of the plant transferred
to the substation outside of the plant, where it is further transformed? If you
ask the operator of Tricastin if this is "their" substation, what would be
their answer? And what would be the answer of RWE?
> I don't see anything else than a relation to bring substation and power plant
> together.
If they don't belong together they shouldn't be brought together ;-)
> You may say it's not a single site power plant.
> => Many situation like above would be encountered so we won't actually have
> so many single site power plant.
> => Only the substation is off the power plant site. Do we have to link
> substation and power plants this way?
See above. Two different operators might be a good clue that they don't belong
to each other.
Best regard,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
