This is the downside to Tesla having first-mover advantage. They made a decision that turned out not to be the right one down the road that requires a retrofit to work with existing standards. I suspect Nissan Leaf owners with their CHAdeMO port will soon face the same fate. I am importing new US DC Fast Chargers each week and every week seems to have less and less CHAdeMO support.
That said, this isnt something to do with the supercharger, this has everything to do with the vehicle. That information would belong on the vehicles entry (like in Wikidata) but the station itself can charge it post-retrofit. The onus is on the owner to either get a retrofit or know that they can only use superchargers (in North America this can be found by filtering amenity=charging_station by nodes or ways with brand:wikidata=Q17089620 per the Name Suggestion Index (NSI)) Maybe a case can be made for an access conditional, but that is not in scope of this proposal.
Similarly, I have been having discussions on importing supercharge.info’s database into OSM and they have been cooperative, and are allowing us to use their data. My most recent “OSMUS State of Charge” goes over that. Another challenge there is not all superchargers are open to all EVs with a NACS → CCS adapter. The automaker must be a “Tesla partner” to use the supercharger network sites at V3 and V4 superchargers. So far, when looking at the data, I have been converting this to access=no + access:conditional=yes @ tesla_vehicles when a station is Tesla-only. Again, this is something tangently related but not related to this proposal. If we want to discuss it I would be happy to. I have several US-based projects going right now to clean up and update and add EV infrastructure to the US. It is a mess and every data consumer Ive seen or talked with have said the same.
For what it’s worth, all the data consumers I have seen support NACS tagging. Supercharge.info and OpenChargeMap to name 2 I’ve dove into the data of.