Proposal talk:Electricity:origin

Why Reinvent the Wheel?

Why don't you simply use generator:source=*? There's also power_source=*. Both mean exactly the same as the key you are proposing. --Fkv (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

See below. It's not about source at all. Fanfouer (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The power isn't necessarily coming from a generator, and so generator:source would be confusing. (Luke) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not about sources

Hi and thank you to point out the qualification of electricity providers. As explained on @tagging mailing-list, electricity greeness is not aout its source but how the custommer choose its provider.
As everyone consume power from the grid, I suggest to not use any source here as it can confuse mappers with the physical source of power. generator:source=* for instance is about generator input but here we're discussing about financial flows, mainly.
How do you feel about power:origin=*? In Europe, we deal with Guarentee of Origin (see Wikipedia) adopted from European Directive 2009/28/EC. Fanfouer (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Key:power should only be used for the electrical grid infrastructure, so I don't think this would fit as it is not connected necesarily to the grid at all. Electricity is the right start and I don't see a distinction between source or origin. Is origin used elsewhere already? --Luke (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

How would we dealing with origin of electricity if your device isn't feed by a provider through the grid infrastructure?

Difference between source and origin: source refers to the physical device and flow through the grid to feed your device while origin refers to who you pay and his strategy to produce (or buy) as much energy as you pay from a given source. Labels like hey! this car charging device is completely fed by wind tubrines are hoaxes: this car charging device consumes the same physical electricity as anyone in the country but the operator pays a provider who compensates. That's why I don't like source here since we're dealing with origin only Fanfouer (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So perhaps it would make sense to have tags like electricity:source=grid plus electricity:origin=hydro to describe the car charging station in Goettingen linked on the page? I really like this idea as it clearly seperates the two. Of course, it would also be possible to simply define electricity=grid, which is something that was proposed already but was abandoned. It is of course possible to have charging stations or other amenities that are powered by nearby generators, which would then be tagged by power=generator, but I think there is such a clear delineation between the formal power network and the electricty the end user uses, that I'd be hesitant to include the charging stations there. Furthermore, I think it would make sense to be able to tag different types of amenities or even buildings if they advertise that they would use 'green' electricity. This would then clutter up the power-based tags; currently it seems as if these provide a very good map of the grid as relevant for a utility and less so for an end user. I have no direct experience with the power grid mapping though. --Luke (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

avoid source due to its multiple meaning in osm

Hello, in osm, the key or namespace source has 3 meanings :

• the source of the data (survey, imagery, opendata, ...)
• primary energy for a generator or a plant
• how a feature is applied (maxspeed for a zone due to an urban-rural-zone <> local maxspeed limit valid until the next intersection).

to avoid the source:maxspeed mess (mix of 2 meaning in the same key), it seems to me preferable to avoid the use of the source namespace Marc marc (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While I don't think a direct namespace conflict would occur in respect to source of data as 'source' is the secondary key of electricity, I do agree that it could still be a potential source of confusion. I had originally based the proposal on 'gnerator:source', but as mentioned above, it seems that 'electricity:origin' might be a better key and would have the added benefit of not adding a further defintion to source. - Luke (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What about cases where there are multiple sources?

I assume that ; separated list but it would nice to have it explicit. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Move page?

To Proposed features/electricity:origin? (I can do this if you are unable to do this) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, it waits for page deletion by admins Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I unfortunately didn't know about the move feature, but I am hoping it gets deleted quickly. If not, I would then copy the text there and link back to this page. - Luke (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

electricity:claimed_origin

My problem with this tag is that it is fundamentally unverifiable by mapper. Maybe change it to tagging what is marked - "Foobar is powered by wind" label and so on are verifiable unlike "Foobar is powered by wind" that is impossible for mapper to check Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Similar to many other claims in the real world, this should be based on the information presented in the area. No mapper stands around to verify the precise opening hours of each store, but rather takes the signs at face value. In some countries, as mentioned above,Guarantees of origin already exist and I expect this will become more widespread. (It is of course always possible to lie on a sign, but this isn't marked in any other tags in OSM) I realize this is still a very political topic currently, but I would like to avoid hard-baking these opinions into the OSM tags - it is however valid to mention on the wiki site which countries have a guarantee and which do not. I don't think there should be a double standard here due to the still-conteseted nature of green electricity as this will likely resolve itself in the future. - Luke (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I should also add that for amenities powered by e.g. solar generators, the tag 'claimed_origin' would then not be accurate, leading to two tags ('origin' and 'claimed_origin') with nearly identical use. - Luke (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that "claimed origin" should be distinct from "direct origin" : the former is merely a certificate, while the other has on-the-ground physical implications. Having both electricity:origin=* and electricity:claimed_origin=* would work imo. --Gileri (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The combination of electricity=grid with electricity:origin=* already implies that the origin is merely through a certification system. I've discussed this further on the main electricity proposal page. - Luke (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyhow, origin concept is only suitable for grid powered devices. There is no point to have a different claimed origin than one of the standalone generator powering a device in the middle of a desert for instance Fanfouer (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the parent proposal, thank you for pointing it out! However my mistake highlight that electricity:origin=* may be misused in lieu of electricity=*, while electricity:claimed_origin=* should lower that risk. --Gileri (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean with it being misused in lieu of electricity? And why would claimed_origin lower the risk? - Luke (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah my message wasn't clear. What I meant is that contributors may confuse electricity=* with electricity:origin=* if they are not familiar with both tags. Naming the key electricity:claimed_origin=* instead of electricity:origin=* should reduce that risk. --Gileri (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)