Proposal talk:Deprecate socket:tesla supercharger and socket:tesla destination

Access Key

Should the access for Tesla-only chargers be access=permit? Rationale being anyone with a Tesla can use it and to my knowledge the ability to purchase a Tesla is widespread and not limited beyond price.

Although, if we are changing this, lets make it right, access=* has a list of specific modes of transport, EVs are curiously missing. I think it better to document access=ev and use that for man_made=charge_point. This can also be expanded to the amenity=parking_space in addition to the parking_space=charging just to drive home this space is for EVs that are charging only. --GA Kevin (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

1. access=customers ?
2. There's already restriction=charging_only (ones you should leave after fully charged)

—— Kovposch (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes, access=customers would be for your typical parking_space=charging but access=permit was brought up here because the concern about Tesla-only chargers was raised. In this rare case, I think permit would make more sense. I would love for a conditional restriction to be used but I think that would be a tougher battle than permit in this case.
2. Well, I quite like restriction=charging_only for this use case. I still think `ev` should be added to the access=* page, akin to car, foot, etc. (ev=only as an example that could be used elsewhere) but that would be outside this broader discussion.

--GA Kevin (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi GA Kevin. I put access=customer on the page as this is in line with the guidance on the socket:tesla_supercharger=* tag page. My aim with this proposal is to not try to change many things at the same time and to keep it focused on the socket tags. --RobJN (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

restriction=charging_only specifically states not to use access=*. You have identified that this page has incorrect and outdated information, it's update should aim to address known incorrect tagging like this. --GA Kevin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a page that says not to use access tag. I see a page that says you don't have to. But even that sends wrong because access tags are about the transportation type not the fuel type of that transportation. Furthermore the restriction tag you mention should probably really go on the parking bay feature not necessarily the amenity=charging_station feature. --RobJN (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I am amenable to that. So something like the following:

Charging Station Anatomy

Component	Tagging
Charging Station	amenity=charging_station access=customers name=* brand=* operator=* capacity=*
Charge Point	man_made=charge_point access=customers charge_point:connector:*=* charge_point:output=* charge_point:transmission=* brand=* operator=* capacity=* electricity=* colour=*
Charging Space	amenity=parking_space parking_space=charging restriction=charging_only capacity=* ref=* lit=*

--GA Kevin (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Connector vs. Socket

I understand the current way to tag a man_made=charge_point connector is to use socket:*=* and socket:<type>:output=* but if we are going to make a change, lets make it right.

Electricity flows from the socket to the connector to reach the device it is powering. See here based off the ACEA documentation:

Terminology for common electric vehicle charging station parts.

OpenStreetMap would be concerned with the current, output, and connector type. Which also nicely matches your diagram on the amenity=charging_station page:

Charging station diagram

I suggest the following to align with fuel stations while notating the extra information useful to an electrified vehicle operator. This also allows users to any tags you like the connector to make it flexible with naming (NACS vs. SAE J3400 for example) and any future connectors similar to fuel octane levels and common names.

charge_point:connector=* charge_point:output=* charge_point:current=*

Basic Tagging comparison

Fuel Station	Charging Station
amenity=fuel	amenity=charging_station
man_made=fuel_pump	man_made=charge_point
fuel:*=*	charge_point:connector:*=* (ex. charge_point:connector:nacs=yes) charge_point:output=* charge_point:current=ac OR charge_point:current=dc

--GA Kevin (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Already had a debate about using frequency=* for ac vs dc Proposal talk:Charging connectors#Suffix neccessity
Even for ac, there's still single-phase vs 3-phase, although the latter isn't commonplace yet. current=* needs to be reserved for electric current in amperes. As linked, socket:*:current=* is already used for that.
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I read through the debate here. Seems to be getting into the weeds a bit. At the end of the day, a data consumer would find current, output, and connector type(s) offered at a station to be useful. This is also the information typically displayed on the man_made=charge_point. If a casual mapper went up to a charge point and saw "DC max X KwH" they could then look at the connector and verify all 3 pieces in one go, without technical knowledge. Similar to how octane is captured in fuel=*.

However, that's not the crux of my comment, the crux of it is that as evidenced by the graphic and source shared, we are using socket wrong when it comes to cars. Nearly everything else on the socket:*=* page is a true socket (with the exception of the stray USB-C cable, which is a connector to a USB-C socket, not a socket itself.) This seems odd as the electric flow does not come from the connector, it simply facilitates the transfer from the charge point to the inlet (in the case of EVs, the charge port and ultimately the battery.) That is why I suggest we change the term to be accurate, calling a connector a connector and a socket a socket. Since the connector is attached to the charge point, charge_point:connector=* would be the simple way to capture this. Maybe it will start a new standard of *:connector=* for things like phone charging stations with built-in cables but again that's beyond this EV discussion.

So far as current being reserved, we can find an alternate, such as charge_point:transmission=*. Thoughts?

--GA Kevin (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I can see that OSM's use of socket is a mixture of what the industry would refer to as a socket and a connector. For the purpose of this proposal though I want to keep the change as small as possible to give it the greatest chance of success. Therefore I don't want to get into the socket vs connector debate as part of this particular proposal. --RobJN (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not just electrified vehicles that use this terminology. Nearly all electrified elements use socket and connector in this way. If we will be continuing the improper use of socket for this tag, I will have to oppose it. I cannot in good faith support a correction with known and ignored issues as fundamental as that. We can (and should) come to a consensus on how to address the issue, but ignoring it will not yield the results you think it will. --GA Kevin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I kindly ask that you pause for a moment and consider what you are saying here. In effect you are saying you will oppose an improvement because the improvement doesn't go as far as you like. If you do that then no improvement will be made. Instead if you don't oppose the first step then it makes a second step easier. --RobJN (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be opposing a proposal because it uses incorrect terminology. The current tagging does as well, but if not in this proposal a new proposal should be made that accurately fixes the issues with this tag, not just a portion. I am happy to do the work and help the proposal if time commitment is a concern but if we are correcting a tag, we should do it fully, especially if a full proposal process is undertaken (no small feat.) --GA Kevin (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Time commitment is not a problem. Rather I have found that proposals are more successful when they tackle small changes at a time. The more that gets added in any one go the bigger the chance they don't gain the support they need. This is why I proposed doing it in two steps. I'm going to have to reflect now and decide what to do now. --RobJN (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Brand Names

Tesla and other companies like Electrify America have branding names for their chargers. These should be tagged by their brand name such as brand=Tesla and brand=Electrify America with brand:wikidata=*. Perhaps if we really wanted to capture the type of charger, using the schema above, we could use something like charge_point:type=destination or charge_point:type=dc_fast but I think this type of information is more for the standards bodies and brands to straighten out than OpenStreetMap. There is currently the 1999 National Electric Code, Society of Automotive Engineers, and International Electrotechnical Commission all have different ways to describe "types", "levels", or "modes" of charging. Personally, I am a fan of the IEC mode system but by no means should we be picking a winner here to tag. A data consumer can just as easily decide how to decode things like charge_point:output=* and charge_point:current=* to deduct this information using whatever standard they please. This also keeps the tagging flexible in case standards change and to account for regional differences. --GA Kevin (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Standards and brands may never align but for OSM end users it is useful to be able to see at a glance if a Tesla charging station belongs to the Supercharger group or the Destination group. Adding this brand tag as proposed helps here (and is in line with documented and in-use practice). I agree that technical standards are for others to decide, not for OSM to decide. --RobJN (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A Tesla Supercharger is a specific branded version of a man_made=charge_point (Tesla Supercharger Network). name=* can refer to this information, and we can certainly edit it on The Name Suggestion Index (NSI) or alternatively branch=* can say something like branch=Tesla Supercharger Austin or branch=Tesla Destination Austin Mariott (examples only - not sure if these actually exist.) At any rate, seems the NSI could use some updating anyway surrounding charging which would be out of scope for here, but can coincide. brand=* may be good to read through as it will go into detail that brands are overall names, not names particular to a location. Particular to location names are captured in name=* for unique values or branch=* for structured values. --GA Kevin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing here. Brands are overall, while names particular to a location go into the name= tag. --RobJN (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, name=* or branch=* would be a better fit than brand=*. Once approved, NSI can be updated to reflect the outcome. --GA Kevin (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)