RfC: Deprecate socket:tesla_supercharger and socket:tesla_destination tags

General talk
,
1

Hi all.

Context

I have been looking at EV charging infrastructure and how we map this in OpenStreetMap. EV charging has evolved as EVs have become more of a mature and widely adopted technology. As such there are some things about the way we tag them in OpenStreetMap that seem odd now. I will start with Tesla charging sockets.

My proposal (for discussion):

  1. Deprecate socket:tesla_supercharger=*
  2. Deprecate socket:tesla_destination=*
  3. Add socket:nacs=* (for use in North America). [Related Item 10 as NACS can be used for AC and DC charging but I don’t think we want socket:dc_nacs and socket:ac_nacs]
  4. Keep socket:type2_combo=* (Europe), socket:gb_ac= and socket:gb_dc (China).
  5. Unclear if we need to add/create socket:gb_ac_cable=* the same way we have type2 and type2_cable. Need a local mapper to confirm.
  6. Add/create socket:dc_type2_cable for older European tesla superchargers that still have the DC type 2 cable (physically this is the same as type2_cable but it utilises the DC via type 2 functionality. [Related: Item 10]
  7. Use access=customers for Superchargers that can only be used by Tesla vehicles.
  8. Encourage use of the brand=Tesla Supercharger / network=Tesla Supercharger / brand=Tesla Destination Charger / network=Tesla Destination Charger tags already in use to differentiate between Tesla’s DC (fast) and AC (slow) charging network. [I’m not sure whether brand or network key is better, both are in use today]
  9. Encourage the use of the socket::output= kW tag so mappers can capture the actual power of each charger (useful for non-telsa users using tesla chargers)
  10. Option: Do we need a tag to indicate if the charger/socket is DC/AC/both.…?
  11. Option: Should we create a tag to indicate the presence of the “Magic Dock” adapter?

In detail / my research

Unlike for everything else in the socket key, the socket:tesla_supercharger tag can mean 3 different physical socket/connector designs depending on where in the world you are. This is because the socket / cable used to charge Tesla cars is not consistent around the world. There are 3 systems:

  • NACS (North America, Japan and Korea; NACS is a new name since Tesla pushed for it to be adopted as standard)
  • GB/T (China)
  • CCS2 (Rest of world)

North American Charging System (NACS)

Developed by Tesla and initially for Tesla vehicles only. Opened up for other manufacturers to use in 2022. Now widely adopted for EV sales in the USA. The physical plug is still the same but the signalling/comms was changed from CAN bus to CCS protocol.

Tesla vehicles built prior to 2021 are incompatible with the CCS protocol and require a retrofit to become compatible with CCS. However, the Tesla Supercharger network remains backward compatible with the prior proprietary CAN bus standard (i.e. Tesla chargers can use both the CAN bus and CCS protocol depending on what vehicle is connected).

NACS can support both AC charging and DC fast charging.

An adapter (called the “Magic Dock”) is available at (some?) V3 and (all?) V4 Tesla Superchargers so that (non-tesla) cars with a CCS1 socket can be plugged in. Given the adoption of NACS by all major car manufacturers in the region, this might fall away in time, leaving it to the customer to carry around the adapter if they need it. You can also get a NACS to Type 1 adapter if you only need AC charging.

China (GB/T)

Two different connectors: GB/T 20234.2 for AC charging and GB/T 20234.3 for DC fast charging. Tesla vehicles have both connectors (AC left, DC right).

Tesla China
Tesla China1200Ă—800 113 KB

Note that the GB/T AC socket looks similar to the Type 2 socket used in Europe, and while their male and female connectors are physically the same, they are not overall identical as they have different configurations and signalling. While the European implementation of Type 2 (IEC 62196-2 Type 2) uses a female connector and male vehicle inlet, GB/T 20234.2 specifies a male connector and female vehicle inlet. Furthermore the signalling differs.

Rest of world

Here type2 is used for AC charging, and type2 combo (also known as CCS2) is used for DC fast charging.

Note that you can also do “DC low” and “DC mid” charging just with the type2 connector; the Combo 2 extension adds two extra high-current DC pins underneath (making type2 combo) to allow “DC High” (DC fast) charging. Tesla made use of this with vehicles sold before May 2019 only having the type2 connector but allowing for DC charging at the Tesla Superchargers (tesla call this “DC Type 2”). Vehicles built from May 2019 have the full type2 combo socket.

All Tesla V2 superchargers in Europe feature dual-cable posts to accommodate for DC type 2 and type 2 combo charge ports. V3 superchargers just have the type 2 combo cable and older vehicles wanting to use these need to get a hardware upgrade.

Access to other brands

Some Tesla chargers can only be used by Tesla vehicles. Others have been opened up so vehicles from other manufacturers can use them.

Conclusion

Keeping socket:tesla_supercharger and socket:tesla_destination tags seems odd to me and not in line with the general use of the socket key. My proposals for what to change are laid out above.

I look forward to your thoughts and feedback.

7 Likes
2

I assume that zero comments mean that this is a viable proposal so I have gone ahead and created the required wiki page. Please add comments there if you have any:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Deprecate_socket:tesla_supercharger_and_socket:tesla_destination

3

Is it still required to post to the tagging mailing list? If so I would appreciate it if someone can share it there please.

4

Wouldn’t J3400 be the “correct” way of referring to NACS? Or are we going with the more colloquial name?

5

I don’t think they need to be one or the other. The wiki seems to have a mix and some that could be said to be the “specification name” rather than the “colloquial” name are less clear cut. Take type 2 as an example: I see this being used as more often now as the common /colloquial name than I see mennekes being used (at least in the UK).

My preference would be to use NACS over J3400 as easier to remember and more likely to be how people refer to them. Although long term if the market converges on a single standard in the USA, then people may not need to refer to them under any name - they will just be “the car charger cable/socket”.

6

Hi @RobJN, I have added a few thoughts to the proposal discussion page. Please take a look and see what you think. Much easier to format complex replies on the discussion page vs. forum.

7

Thanks for all the useful comments @GA_Kevin. In this instance I do want to keep the proposal to a small focused area (specifically the Tesla socket/cable tags) otherwise there is a risk that we don’t get agreement. I had added comments on the wiki to this regard.

Obviously that doesn’t stop us from looking at those other things via a follow up proposal if we decide they are still important.

1 Like
8

Yes, please. Especially socket:tesla_supercharger_ccs is useless because that’s just a duplicate of socket:type2_combo.

9

Hi all. I parked this proposal due to other commitments but would now like to continue with it. I am adding a poll here to determine the level of support for continuing:

Should I:

  • Move it to voting stage
  • Keep it at the discussion stage / more work required
0 voters

Many thanks
Rob

10

Hi Rob, I updated the socket page a few days ago. I am not against if you want to make this formal with the vote (and it has my support) but I don’t think we need a proposal for this since it’s not really a socket as you point out. It’s just updating the wiki to be more correct. Definitely some other pages that reference it though and I haven’t done that cleanup yet.

If / when we’re good to go here I have an overpass query loaded into JOSM to update the approximately 1,000 elements in the US to the socket:nacs tag.

As far as access to other EVs when adding them I use the access key in the US. access=no + access:conditional=yes @ tesla_vehicles for Tesla only stations and access=yes for all other public superchargers (destination I haven’t tackled yet). This does bring up the wrinkle of “open to other EVs” doesn’t actually mean “anyone with a CCS-NACS adapter” in the US, you have to have a vehicle that’s a member of the Tesla “partner site” program. Most are, some are not. This isn’t tackled by this proposal but some thoughts I wanted to mention.

We also have some stations in the US that have native NACS cables that aren’t Tesla owned, branded, operated, or affiliated. For those, socket:tesla_supercharger and the like make even less sense!

11

As always with "deprecation"s the question is how do you reach data consumers and how much time is reasonable to allow for a transition (replacing socket:tesla_supercharger_ccs should be straightforward as socket:type2_combo is the same thing and any consumer of the data will already support it).

1 Like
12

I’m all for notifying users if we have a wiki page or taginfo tab but I don’t think it’s fair to expect OSM users to do deep research into who may possibly use our data (some may and never tell us at all!)

As far as how long to transition, I say that’s a business decision on the data consumer side not OSM. OSM should aim to be as accurate as possible, if a data consumer doesn’t want to dedicate the resources to keeping up to date with tagging that’s on them and shouldn’t slow down OSM.

13

A similar discussion emerged in General discussion about bad impact of bot edits on data consumers was: Proposed automated edit: retag surface=paving stones:30

14

But giving essentially zero notice is?

15

This conversation and wiki discussions for years isn’t exactly 0 notice. At any rate; a data consumer should be supporting the more generic term anyway as not every NACS connector station is a Tesla station.

But that’s not up to OSM users to get consumers to update their app, it’s on us to make the best map possible. Again, if data consumers don’t want to dedicate the resources to keeping their app in sync with OSM, why use OSM? It is not static by design.

16

I’m taking this as a general comment instead of one specifically related to this proposal because we haven’t suggested that we’d give no notice. I’m assuming the vote comes first (to demonstrate it is sufficiently supported) followed by a notification period and then the implementation of the deprecated status. Please correct me if that’s not right.

17

None of that is required or even just commonly done.

Not to mention that If you are a bit creative you can deprecate and then delete a tag used by 1000s with just 8 votes.

18

Is this an actual issue? Can you please link where a data consumer relies on these tags but doesn’t support NACS for some reason?

If it’s an actual issue, let’s reach out. But if it’s a hypothetical let’s not let our imaginations stop progress here.

19

That is a really weird demand.

If anybody actually consumes OSM charging socket values, it is extremely unlikely that they even know about a value that has neither a wiki page or has even existed in the database for more than a couple of weeks at this point.

It is the downside of providing open data that you will never be able to answer such a question definitely even not considering the above, so you just have to make some assumptions about what would be a reasonable way of announcing a change and a suitable term to wait before actually making changes.

20

Except this isn’t OSM in a vacuum. I assume the main issue is Tesla Superchargers in the US. As China has an established standard (GBT? I think) as does the rest of the world with CCS. But if you’re a data consumer concerned with EV charging how on earth do you not support NACS? There are non-Tesla stations with this connector, how would you handle that? That’s a bad data consumer if they don’t support NACS tagging. Tesla is a brand, not a socket.

All I’m asking is if there’s such a data consumer or are we holding up progress because of our imagination that such a poor data consumer may exist? I’m not asking for a definitive or exhaustive list, even just 1 example

1 Like