[RFC] Feature Proposal – Charging Stations V2

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
1

This proposal aims to update and modernize charging station tagging in OSM to be more explicit, easier to parse, up-to-date terminology wise, and organizationally, as well as establish flexibility for future advancements.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Charging_Stations_v2#

Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.

2

I very much appreciate the comments of @mueschel in the talk page, and encourage anyone else that has thoughts on this to comment there or here!

3

I have added some comments to the wiki talk page too. In summary:

  • This is trying to change too much in one go
  • Please don’t try to make big changes to existing tags (as you are proposing to do with the current tag)
  • Site relations are too complex; multipolygons will do.
  • Adding the socket info to the parking bay is a bad idea as some bays can access more than one charge point / dispenser. Better to put the socket information on the physical charge point / dispenser (it’s also easier for the mapper).

You seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

2 Likes
4

Take a look at how I map charging stations. In this example I use a multi-polygon to capture the fact that the charging station covers two area. I add up all the sockets in the charging station (semi-colon separated) and add that to the amenity=charging_station area/multi-polygon relation. See example here:

Relation: ‪dd663109-220f-487f-9eb9-96c4e6fee3ce‬ (‪19153555‬) | OpenStreetMap

And then within that area, I place a node for each man_made=charge_point and add the socket info to that. This way the socket info for each charge point is recorded on the charge point, with the summarised aggregate added to the charging station.

This fits with currently documented wiki pages and is much simpler than a site relation.

1 Like
5

This (as quoted above) is the fundamental issue with your proposal. The bay<-> socket relationship simply does not hold true in the real world. As demonstrated in this photo where blue is the Chademo connector and black is the Type 2 CCS connector. The user has purposefully crossed the cables over thereby breaking your assumption that the left cable is for the left bay and the right cable is for the right bay.

image
image1200×900 147 KB

6

Thanks @RobJN for your comments / feedback! I have updated the proposal and talk pages accordingly :slight_smile:

7

Around here we have many many chargers that feature 3 plugs for 2 places.

Usually double CCS2+Chademo or type 2+ccs2+Chademo.

IMG20250327172416
IMG202503271724161920×2560 415 KB

8

Another example

IMG20250306164156
IMG202503061641561920×1440 332 KB

9

Just for informations, following this discussion and the problems with the actual schema, i had started a draft to add the charge point, and I’ve tried to not use relations.
Feel free to pick some ideas if you want:

image
image1600×1102 94.3 KB