On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 08:52:45 +0200, Dimitar <osm.dimitar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What evidence do you have that is the case? What is being provided is > > energy, not power. > > From Cambridge dictionary: > energy - the power from something such as electricity or oil that can do > work, such as providing light and heat > From Meram-Webster > energy - usable power (such as heat or electricity)
which both reinforce that "energy" is correct word for, well, different types of energy. > > ...and if we mean electricity, why not use that in the tag? > > Because the current value has been documented by someone in 2016 when it > had about 100 uses or less. I think the question was about your proposal, i.e. why "office=power_utility" if something like "office=electrical_utility" or similar would be much clearer. But it does not matter IMHO, as I think that tag is to narrow.... > > There is no subsidiary. > > Then using office=utility + utility=gas;power might be a good idea. What > do you think? Yes, such more general tag would cover it. However 2 important points: - while office=utility is actually already used (but undocumented), its usage is tiny, with just 107 uses (compare that to "office=water_utility" with 2500+ uses and wiki documentation, and "office=energy_supplier" with 4700+ uses and wiki documentation) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/office#values - while adding tags for things that nobody has yet ever mapped is small and adequate for proposal process, cost of CHANGING the existing situation is MUCH higher. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/changing-rfc-time-for-proposals-including-deprecation/5661/2 for details. So it must be calculated if benefits outweigh the costs. Given the conversation exchanged so far, I think that the costs are much higher than the potential benefits. -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
