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.
Iâd suggest adding an extra line to the first paragraph of the proposal to say that (continuing the analogy) where a new âamenity=fuelâ is added around several existing âman_made=fuel_pumpâ (currently mapped as âamenity=charging_stationâ) that those âamenity=charging_stationâ within should always be changed to âman_made=charge_pointâ.
Other than that, the proposal is refreshingly detailed, especially in terms of the example.
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).
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!
Multiple Blitz Power columnsâ, each capacity 2, Socket âCâ, (behind autoclosing double locked slides so could not tell what they look like) . All 3 with âCharging Stationâ 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 âCâ 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 donât 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
Completely bamboozled if weâve chosen a tagging scheme that doesnât cleanly support this?
Solution #1 is suboptimal since it leaves out information.
Solution #2 is better in that it retains information about multiple outputs. Not too fond of the ; and I donât see a good way to connect the multiple outputs to the corresponding number of charging points (e.g. 2x150kW, 1x100kW).
I think the best (only?) way to accurately map this situation would be to split into separate nodes/ways. In the provided case, one could do
1 node with socket:type2_combo=1 and socket:type2_combo:output=100kW
1 node with socket:type2_combo=2 and socket:type2_combo:output=150kW (alternatively 2 nodes with socket:type2_combo=1)
As far as I understand the newly approved proposal these nodes would be man_made=charge_point (and in that case I would strongly argue to never attempt to duplicate socket/output information on a corresponding amenity=charging_station if it exists).
Instead of using man_made=charge_point on could just split into two amenity=charging_station and avoid the potential duplication and ambiguity of having socket/output information in two places⊠For reasons I still donât quite understand, that solution is probably frowned upon by some
Socket and output info can and should be added to man_made=charge_points. The problem with multiple outputs is one of the reasons why I proposed the tag originally.
Good point about the maximum! I see no inherent contradiction in doing one or both of:
Adding individual (max) socket output power to man_made=charge_point
Adding the maximum of those on amenity=charging_station
Doing both doesnât feel quite right, though, I think mainly because it duplicates information, and thus requires mappers to keep the two synchronized (and consumers to decide which to use in case of a mismatch).
It also appears to me that the aggregation of the properties of charge_point is better left to the consumer⊠Maybe they want the average or minimum. Anyway, such aggregations are trivial to compute so Iâm not really sure doing it manually actually helps anyone?
Iâd like to tag a charging point that offers 3 types of connectors on the same stall/device/dispenser/⊠(Delta UFC200).
These 3 connectors can be used simultaneously, with different power ratings. These 3 charging points also have their own EVSE reference that allows them to be linked to dynamic data that informs users which point is free, occupied, or down.
I canât seem to do this with just amenity=charging_station and man_made=charge_point. Or maybe thereâs something I havenât understood.
Just a comment. It may be posible that the charger can simultaneously use ale 3. But most places i have seen there are only 2 parking spaces there the cable can reach. So i will nomaly set capacity = 2
