Refinement of power generation for the next decade

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
41

From the armchair I looked at what their boiler does:

provide control energy to the grid.

Still I’'d say, multiple choice owns semicolon delimited lists.

42

Hello @Hungerburg

I also sought for a bit more information on this boiler. Here is what I found:

It’s “power 2 heat”, the main purpose is to convert electricity into heat, it doesn’t get supplementary heat from biomass boilers as far as I found (feel free to bring supplementary knowledge I may had missed on that point).

From that point, according to the current proposal, here are tags I would use:

  • power=generator
  • generator:source=grid (new, proposed)
  • generator:method=resistive (new, proposed)
  • generator:technology=boiler (new, proposed)
  • input:electricity=20 MW (new key, proposed)
  • output:hot_water=yes (new key, proposed)
  • man_made=storage_tank
  • content=hot_water
  • capacity=1400 m3

It would also be possible to put generator on a node in the middle of a man_made=storage_tank circle polygon to distinguish them two.

43

Yes, this is the tower. I would never ever think of that as a generator.

1 Like
44

Fine, it follows the previous comments for heat pumps.

I’m currently investigating other possible keys like heat=* or heat_cool=* for devices and facilities intended for heat/cold generation. That could be useful for splitting heat pumps, boilers, exchangers in another proposal. I’m looking forward preserving input/output, source, method, technologies for them.

1 Like
45

I started Proposed automated edit: replace "power=cable_distribution_cabinet" and "man_made=street_cabinet + street_cabinet=power" with "man_made=street_cabinet + utility=power"

Note, I still think that deprecations, especially mass scale deprecations should be accompanied with clear, specific and convincing rationale. This is missing in this proposal.

2 Likes
46

I have said earlier that I am not an expert for power infrastructure, but as a “mapper by survey” of course I come across such objects and try to deal with them. By doing so I have regularly crosschecked the power refinement proposal just to see how things could probably be done better.

The more I went into details, the more I am convinced this proposal cannot succeed. One reason is that it is way to comprehensive as @Mateusz_Konieczny already pointed out. Another reason ist the redefinition of widely accepted keys without any benefit as already strongly criticized by @SomeoneElse.

We all know that power generation, storage and distribution is undergoing significant changes and that OSM will do good in taking this into account. As such I appreciate any effort in reviewing the actual tagging scheme but I’d say a step by step approach would be more effective than a cover-it-all-approach which is so detailed that many readers will be put off by its sheer lenght alone.

What I am missing most is a basic contemplation on how we could deal with those power related objects which are gaining increasing importance. When trying to map a battery storage unit for instance I am wondering why we map that battery as generator (which it definitely is not), adding that the source of this battery is a battery (generator:source=battery). What is the benefit of calling a storage unit a generator when we could simply call it storage unit?

The same question has been risen before when talking about heat pumps or water boilers. Does it really make sense to try to press all of these power related elements into the plant/generator scheme or should we not think about dedicated tags for heat pumps, boilers and specially power storage facilities which become increasingly important in connection with renewable energy generation?

Would it not make sense to talk about such basic issues first before we discuss about the detailed list of tags to describe all technical aspects of these different facilities?

5 Likes