Proposal talk:Power plants

Opinion

• I'd like to see something more like building=power_plant, with tags power_type=hydro/wind/fossil/nuclear --Hawke 00:08, 12 June 2007 (BST)

How about following the convention of building=power_plant, power_plant=hydro/wind/gas/coal/nuclear ? MikeCollinson 10:41, 16 June 2007 (BST)

i would not represent power plants as buildings, for several reasons: coal-fired plants often have huge areas around them for storing coal, still considered part of the plant; hydro plants have areas for pipes and so on, and are not always contained within a building (sometimes underground); nuclear plants generally have areas around them for security reasons. maybe this should be a landuse tag? Myfanwy 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the "building" comment. Perhaps power=plant or power=generator (to group it with other power features, like power=line), and then power:source=solar/wind/coal/natural_gas/tide/etc. I definitely do not like the current "power=[source]" system; compare to the existing power=line, does that mean that the plant gets its power from a line!? --Hawke 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hawke that power=[source] does not seem to fit well with power=line and power=tower. I like power=plant with some power_source=XXX - tag (maybe ;). I would use power=plant as an area and maybe within this area building=power_plant just for the people who think it useful and can map those precisely. --Jannis 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

a fine point, will modify Myfanwy 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• should this be moved to man_made=power_plant Myfanwy 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • scratch that, no it shouldn't Myfanwy 18:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• We should probably also have power=solar_plant. They're rare (none that I know of in the UK), but I think there's at least one big solar generator in the US. --Geoff 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• What's the reason for having two tags for this? power=solar_plant makes much more sense than power=generator and power_source=solar -- Ulfl 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. With two keys, it becomes possible for a renderer to render a "generic" power plant, or for it to not have to worry about the various types of generator if it doesn't want to. (because it only needs to know about "power=generator" and it can stop there). With only one key any renderer that wants to render a power plant needs to know about what power values are generators, and what are other things, and it needs to know every value for generator types. For example: Say that hypothetically this proposal were to only add the values "solar_plant", "nuclear_plant", "hydro_plant" and "coal plant" to the "power" key. Then someone wants to map a wind generator. In order for it to show up, the renderers would have to be changed to understand that the new power value "wind_plant" needs to be rendered like the other generators. If instead two keys are used, the renderers would understand that the "power=generator" was a power generator, and could render it without any changes. --Hawke 07:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reminds me of the current place_of_worship tag. It might be pretty well designed for a renderer to do it's work, but each time I want to tag a church I have to take a look at the docs. So what you are doing here is to make it more complicated for mappers to tag new things in favour of renderers to render things. As we have a lot more people out there to map things, I would say it's a better idea to favourite the mappers compared to the renderers. -- Ulfl 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• well, they will have to do that regardless - there's no way anyone could guess/intuitively work out the approved way of tagging a solar power plant, so nothing is really lost. what would you suggest instead? Myfanwy 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• power=solar is *way* more guessable than power=generator;power_source=solar. Why complicate it? Ojw 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• re 2 tags: this proposal suggests power=generator always, and putting all the 'variable' elements in source=*. What other values can power= take other than generator? (if none, why use it at all; why not use power=solar etc. directly?). If the only reason is for generic rendering symbols, then remember that renderers can use wildcards (e.g. building=* will be rendered, no matter whether the value is recognised) so power=* could be rendered as a generic symbol, even if power=wind has a windmill icon and power=coal has a smoke icon. Ojw 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• power currently takes (at least) line, tower, and substation. --Hawke 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• power=converter; input=wind; output=electricity ;) Ojw 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• got to agree with hawke on this Myfanwy 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I voted for this proposal, but I think it should extended to areas. Some power plants use more space then the village I live in. --Ckruetze 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

that slipped by me when i was working on this...must remember to stick to my own list of things to do when creating tags... . i mentioned it in the discussion, will highlight it in a more prominent way when voting is extended (it will be by the looks of things)Myfanwy 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

voting

voting is open, until 2008-02-02
voting has been extended for a further two weeks, until 2008-02-16

• i approve this proposal Myfanwy 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal --Cartinus 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal --Franc 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal --Thewanderer 10:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal --Jannis 11:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal --Ckruetze 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

* I disapprove this proposal. I approve moving these tags over to power, but disapprove the split into power and power_source tags --Ulfl 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal -- EdoM (lets talk about it) 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Hawke 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Boghammar 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Geoff 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Splitting to power is a good move. --Edgemaster 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dalkvist 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Walley 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- studerap 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Although I still don't think that "power_source" is such a good idea I can live with it! -- Ulfl 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Steven te Brinke 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• disapprove - reason for splitting into 2 tags hasn't been adequately explained (it's not necessary for having generic icons) and it introduces a higher risk of people making typos due to tag complexity or guessing/remembering the wrong tag (as happened with amenity/church/place_of_worship/whateverItIsNow) Ojw 08:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (support the general idea of having one key for power stations instead of leaving them in man_made)
• I approve this proposal --Simone 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

voting is closed, this proposal has been approved

See also Proposed features/Power plant - I had my own reasons for using fuel=*, namely that it may be of use in other tags...

This proposal has been approved, but nobody moved it to Map Features and deprecated man_made=power_... . For now I mentioned this proposal in power=generator. If noboday complains, I will deprecate man_made=power_ in two weeks. --Jttt 12:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Perhaps add solid examples of how to combine the tags on the power=generator page. --Milliams 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)