Here is the RFC announcement for the proposal.
1 Like
I think anyone holding this hope will inevitably be disappointed (as pointed out above). Thus such hope should not be the basis for the chosen way of tagging. Instead, any system we choose should allow a good way of mapping individual devices.
And why wouldn’t we want to map individual chargers? They exist and are easily verified on-site or even from imagery.
It probably also means something that all the example images on Tag:amenity=charging_station - OpenStreetMap Wiki are of individual devices…
5 Likes
The proposal supports both tagging individual chargers and only tagging the location. It is entirely up to the user to decide and the proposal is not dependent on any preference and this regard. Personally, I would not tag 30 identical Tesla charge points on a location as it would create unnecessary duplicated information, but other users may think differently.
It probably also means something that all the example images on Tag:amenity=charging_station - OpenStreetMap Wiki are of individual devices…
There actually is a Tesla example at the end of the wiki table which is not an individual device (but the image is). And there clearly are several thousand non-individual locations mapped in OSM. But I agree that more examples of groups should be included on the wiki.
I will soon start the voting process for the proposal. Please let me know if there are any more comments.
1 Like
From the tagging mail list:
@Mateusz_Konieczny :
I guess that in such cases it may be possible to tag it both as
charging station and
a charge point at the same time?That’d work - it makes it clear that this is a “new”
amenity=charging_station (e.g. a “group of chargers”, even if there is
only one), not the previous “probably a single charger but we don’t
really know”.No man_made=charge_point | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
are yet mapped, so any with that tag must be the “new” schema.
@SomeoneElse: I am trying to conclude the charging station proposal and I am considering how to resolve this question. I would very much like to make the proposal as usable as possible. However, I am struggling to understand the use case here.
For my understanding, could you explain why it is important for consumers to know if an amenity=charging_station has a single charge point or multiple charge points? (beyond what can be interfered from capacity and socket tags)
I am thinking that we do not know this today either, and users may not always add an extra tag to clarify (for example double tagging with man_made=charge_point as suggested below). Is it not sufficient for map rendering and for apps to know that “this is a location for charging cars”? Additional information will be available through the other tags (capacity, sockets etc) + tags on individual charge points at the location if mapped.
If you were to know with certainty that an amenity=charging_station is either a single charge point or representing a group of charge points, how would you then use that information? And what would you do with the other “uncertain” locations?
1 Like
Let me rephrase that, in terms of petrol/diesel infrastructure - yes, I would like to be able to tell the difference between an “amenity=fuel” and a “man_made=fuel_pump”. Currently I render the former and ignore the latter (see the pumps such as this one here).
Indeed - but we currently have one of two situations (continuing the petrol analogy):
- “
amenity=fuel” mapped, but not any “man_made=fuel_pump” - Each “
man_made=fuel_pump” mapped, with no surrounding “amenity=fuel”
We don’t have a situation today where people have mapped both “amenity=fuel” and “man_made=fuel_pump” on different objects at the same site, with the same tag. If we did, we’d have to change the tagging on one of them to know which was which.
You seem to be suggesting using “amenity=charging_station” for both the equivalent of “amenity=fuel” and “man_made=fuel_pump” on different objects at the same site, which means that I wouldn’t be able to tell which was which there.
2 Likes
Actually which generation and how many of each tesla super chargers are present at a location is quite relevant, and it could be that you have 10 V2s and 10 V3s (and soon V4s), which have different power output and other characteristics that you can’t model with a single object.
2 Likes
Thank you for clarifying.
With the proposal, the idea would be that you render amenity=charging_station only and ignore man_made=charge_point, similar to your fuel example. man_made=charge_point should only be present if there also is a amenity=charging_station present.
If somebody maps a single man_made=charge_point anyway without an amenity=charging_station it will just be ignored in rendering. I would not rule out that some users would do that, for example for charging points which are not really intended for general public usage (even if the access=* tag should be used for that).
1 Like
Sure, but then they are not identical …
It is correct that you would not capture all details in such a case - you would get the maximum output only. Most Tesla Superchargers seem to be mapped in that simplified way (with only one node).
One thing that you can guarantee is that for any given thing, some OSM users will have done that. The problem is if enough of them have. 
I’d suggest adding an extra line to the first paragraph of the proposal to say that (continuing the analogy) where a new “amenity=fuel” is added around several existing “man_made=fuel_pump” (currently mapped as “amenity=charging_station”) that those “amenity=charging_station” within should always be changed to “man_made=charge_point”.
Other than that, the proposal is refreshingly detailed, especially in terms of the example.
1 Like
Done (new item 4 in the Tagging section).
2 Likes
Fantastic. It’ll get my approval. A good step in the right direction for clarity before the charge point rollout really starts to grow.
Just a quick reminder that a lot (742) of charging stations for e-cars are mapped with car=yes instead of motorcar=yes. They seem to be coming from the old tagging scheme which was changed 3 years ago in the osm wiki.
by the way, what is your stance on motorcar=no for charging stations, is it about cars (vehicle type) or generally 2-tracked motor vehicles (as is the meaning of motorcar=no in the access context, which is linked from the charging station page).
The proposal has now been approved.
For those who would like to start updating existing individual charge points with the new man_made=charge_point feature, here is a file with an indication of suitable candidates (search for the GROUP tag): Link to OSM file.
Thank you to everybody who contributed in discussions!
2 Likes
Multiple Blitz Power columns’, each capacity 2, Socket ‘C’, (behind autoclosing double locked slides so could not tell what they look like) . All 3 with “Charging Station” printed near the top.
FTM mapped as single node Charging station, capacity 6 
(oddly this was the second CS encountered on the same survey day where no parking spots were marked on the parallel street_side parking pavement, but since the displays were dead possibly still WIP, looked recycled at that).
All common brands here have phone apps to find their stations, BE seems to be specialised in Type2 sockets and Blitz in ‘C’ whatever that means. The latest model by Enel X, directly plugging into in a rugged street lantern pole in the city centre. Needs some tag creativity to squeeze that in 1 node.
Sorry that I am coming back to this
I wanted to try and use the new tagging scheme and stumbled across a few questions.
I edited the wiki page a bit to not discourage people from also mapping individual chargers.
At the same time I noticed that charger output should be mapped but we don’t clarify what to do if the charging station has charge points with different outputs. Fore xample I know stations that have 2 chargers with 150 kw CCS and 1 with 100kW CCS for example.
I see two options.
- we map the highest output to the station (socket:type2_combo:output=150kW)
- we seperate Max outputs by ;
(socket:type2_combo:output=150kW;100kW)
#1 would be easier for data consumers
#2 would be more accurate
What do you guys think?
I’d recommend option 2.