Thanks!
No worries, if ref:supercharge_info is a helpful ID, then let’s use it! With the whole URL, as @Rovastar and you suggested, I’m all for putting that in the changeset comments unless you need it specially tagged.
It’s getting interesting because what is a brand? Tesla is the company’s short name and also their brand name, but they use Tesla Supercharger and just Supercharger as brand names. I checked a few months back, and they don’t have a trademark on Supercharger, maybe because the US Patent and Trademark Office knows that superchargers have been around to boost internal combustion engine power decades before Telsa, Inc. existed.
BTW, the reason tesla_supercharger was deprecated in favor of nacs for socket tags is because Tesla donated the technology to SAE for them to standardize, which they did as J3400. So Tesla does not own the technology anymore. SAE also slightly changed the name from Tesla’s original (North American Charging Standard) to North American Charging System. NACS is superior to older designs because the connector can transfer either DC or AC single phase power using the same two current-carrying contacts. That’s why it’s more compact than CCS Combo1 (aka CCS1) and CCS Combo2 (used in South America, the EU, and other countries). Here’s the worldwide connector chart I’ve been working on, last updated Jan 2025. The connectors are shown to scale. Note that there are a couple of question marks, because it’s not yet clear what’s going on in Japan and China regarding connectors that support both AC & DC. Maybe this is now known.
Right, EVgo names their posts (another topic: who uses post and who uses dispenser? I just did a survey of that. Since Tesla and ABB use post, I’ll use it.) uniquely so when people contact tech support, they can tell them the name of the post with the problem. Tesla names their posts 1A,1B,1C,1D then 2A,2B,2C,2D and so on because each V3 and V3.5 charger cabinet powers 4 posts. Soon that will change to 8 posts powered by each V4 cabinet. So is 1A a name? I think right now it’s too much work of questionable benefit to tag each post, and there are now 70,000 global Supercharger posts. That’s just one company. It’s already hard enough to keep track of stations, and this can get to the “every blade of grass” level. So it makes sense from a maintenance workload perspective to name the station and tag it with capacity and sockets. Might be time for a proposal for the community to vote on.
No, none of the other tags were present (see my screenshots above or see the tag history). What was seen by the bulk import was the tag name=Tesla Supercharger, because the destination charger was mis-tagged as a Supercharger back in 2019. That set it up to be a match for the bulk import.
I think it’s OK for one or more posts to be tagged as a group as a charging station. What is a charging station? One or more posts. So a charging station can have 1 post or 100 posts. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is if 3 separate but identical posts are each tagged as 3 separate charging stations. That does not compute. What if there are different brands close together? Make each branded group its own station? Might be OK. As mentioned above, for stations that have all the same posts, I’d support tagging the group as a single charging station with the capacity and socket tags providing the number. That works well and is far less work than trying to tag every post. The other issue with trying to tag every post is how to even locate them. Already it’s hard to locate new stations and for that we need on-the-ground photos. Sometimes it will be 2 or more years before satellite photography is available, and then often it’s not good enough to tag individual posts.
Onward!
