Back in 2013 (or even more earlier), several contributors started to look for a solution to state what actual paths power can follow over the physical lines we are used to map in OSM.
Because of some relevant abstractions for an efficient mapping of physical objects we see on ground, it’s not possible to deduct power paths easily from power lines. Several practices raised and are now established about power routes/circuits. Most of them use relations involving different segments of power lines.
These are important information to get a proper model suitable for power planning in many countries, researchers already demonstrated they really like OpenStreetMap over official data.
This topic has already been discussed in previous proposals that couldn’t be voted yet. It doesn’t mean that previous attempts failed but it’s a complex topic that needs to iterate on. David and I are part of the Oh my grid! initiative that has been announced earlier yesterday.
We are pleased to take a supplementary step on this topic with the Power circuits proposal. It aims to unify tagging and mapping practices on the matter.
We invite anyone interested to express their concerns about it.
This chart from the proposal rationale summaries the best what it is all about. Most of us add physical segments as power=line between substations (in red) and the proposal covers the two supplementary levels:
This proposal is the first I contribute on as part of a team like Oh my grid! initiative.
Although we are not set yet, we are aware of concerns that may rise and plan to be cautious about the proposal process, and particularly about the voting.
As a proposal intended to improve things and reinforce available tagging, we first of all seek the comments and then the approval of the community.
Feel free to discuss it here or on the wiki Talk page!
I think you will have to demonstrate how the circuitry information can
be verified on the ground (i.e. without referring to priviliged
information from the network operator).
OpenStreetMap generally maps what is verifiable on the ground, and makes
exceptions from this rule in a few important cases where there is
general agreement that the information is important for the map - like
administrative boundaries.
Power circuitry is a niche endeavour. It is important for your project
but it is not important for OpenStreetMap. Therefore it cannot sail
under the same exception that we make for administrative boundaries; it
can only be mapped in so far as it is visible on the ground.
Only data that can be verified on the ground is data that can ever
“belong” to OpenStreetMap in the sense that we mappers can improve it.
Data that is not verifiable on the ground is just third-party data for
which OpenStreetMap is used as a collection and (re)publication vehicle.
If “Oh my grid” is looking for a platform where people can collaborate
to collect publications from energy companies and build large data sets
from many small pieces they found on various websites, then you must
build such a platform outside of OpenStreetMap. I can see how it would
be convenient to piggyback this on OpenStreetMap with its existing
infrastructure, but it would be abusing OpenStreetMap and the data would
be liable to deletion for lack of verifiability.
Therefore, if you want your proposal to succeed you must explain in the
proposal how each of the things you wish to map can be deducted by
visual inspection on the ground. Anything that requires looking at plans
(or being employed by the network operator) is not suitable for OSM.
The fact that a handful of mappers have been toying with this for many
years cannot serve as a justification to roll it out as an “official”
feature in OpenStreetMap.
Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that this is generally not important for OpenStreetMap? I see a massive use and relevance of the power data around the world in academia and industry. We a currently working on a impact website that shows the relevance of the power data in general.
The fact that a handful of mappers have been toying with this for many
years cannot serve as a justification to roll it out as an “official”
feature in OpenStreetMap.
I’m sorry to say this, but “toying” is simply the wrong tone in this respect. This is unfortunately a pretty serious matter and the people who work with it are professionals and what is done with it is certainly far from “toying”.
The proposed data is some of the most important data to support the expansion and modernisation of the electricity grid, one of the biggest bottlenecks of our time in the fight against climate change. More information about this can be found here: From Taking Stocto Taking Action: How to implement the COP28 energy goals
I think there are two important points that require early clarification as to not get stuck in misunderstanding:
Yes, sections and circuits relations can be fully set from ground inspection and relies on visible knowledge first. That point isn’t elaborated enough in the proposal and we will fix it in the rationale to explain it better.
It’s true Oh-my-grid aims to gather data from various sources. We will always case by case study what is possible to send in OpenStreetMap (license, relevancy and ability) and be open to discussion. We currently focus on ending major transmission power lines in substations and find missing ones with suitable imagery. We started to put some documentation on wiki, particularly on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_networks
