SK53
(SK53)
3
@RosaLA: I don’t think adding PV potential to OSM objects within OSM is the best way to proceed. Defined potential will greatly depend on the underlying methodology and types of information used. It is intrinsically non-verifiable by a normal mapper even if the methodology was available.
I think the best process would be to make available files associating a given building’s PV potential with a specific OSM element. In case elements get deleted or changed significantly you can also add something like the lat/lon of the building centroid as well, which would enable any mismatches to be caught & processed. Also a centroid would allow buildings not already in OSM to be matched at a later date.
The kind of information which would be appropriate in OSM are properties of the building: height, roof:height, roof:material, roof:shape etc. I imagine many of these might be used in your estimation algorithm (even if indirectly, if it uses machine learning). These properties may also help for different algorithms or for other purposes related to understanding building resilience in a changing climate.
OpenSolarMap was a project carried out a while ago in France to identify Solar PV potential, and involved several members of the OSM-FR community, including @cquest, who may be able to say what they did with their results. We haven’t yet used solar data from the UK as training data for this type of project, but we now have very substantial coverage suitable for this type of work.
1 Like