Talk:Tag:power=plant

Including identifiers used in official databases

Is there any work/interest on including identifiers used in official databases (such as eGRID, E-PRTR, and the EU-ETS)? I've worked quite a bit with these databases and would be willing to set up some sort of automated system that could help with the matching process. --ChrisDavis 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need plant:source=* tag

We currently have generator:source=* but no plant:source=* tag. I think it would be very desirable to also have plant:source=*. This would be useful when rendering power infrastructure at lower zooms where you don't want to render individual generators but only the plants as a whole. The value should include the primary fuel(s) used in the power plant, e.g. "wind" for a wind farm or "coal;gas" for a plant having both coal-fired and gas-fired generators. My most recent version of the power rules for Maperitive supports this new tag and shows the usefulness of this tag.

I would like to have comments on adding this tag to the feature page. If there are no serious objections to adding this tag I will include it in a couple of weeks. --opani (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any objection.

Consistency between generators inside the plant and the plant itself should be considered in QA (like plant:output=* and generator:output=*). Fanfouer (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Passt eigentlich in das System. Nur werden die meisten Kraftwerke mit power=generator gemapped und so kommt auch plant:output=* sehr selten vor.--geozeisig (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I find this misleading. xy:source=* is typically used to indicate the source of an object in OSM (metadata). I understand that it is tried to avoid "combustion" or similar wordings ("fuel") because they don't apply universally (e.g. solar energy, geothermal energy, tidal energy, etc.), but I would recommend to use a different tag, like energy_source=*, power_source=* (i.e, not a colon separated subtag, not referring to plant but to energy/power). --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see it this way, but I agree with you Martin.

May we use power:input:*=* and power:output:*=* for both plant and generator ?

If not, I think plant:input:*=* will do the trick, won't you ? Fanfouer (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This tag *: source can be confusing, and we have 2 tags (generator: source and plant: source) to say the same thing on 2 different objects, it would be simpler to have only one tag for the 2 (power_source=* ?)

plant:method ?

I think the values of the tag generator:method applies as much to the power plant as to the generator alone. There may be several in a power plant but as for the source. So why not a plant:method=* with the same values as for generator:method.

Energy production

It was possible to indicate the quantity of electricity produced annually. The problem is that it depends on the years. Maybe a tag energy_production = x Wh (or kWh, MWh, GWh) or better energy_production:2015 = *, energy_production:2014 = *, and energy_production:average = *

Don't agree with this. This kind of data should be available in a database outside of OSM. Fanfouer (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Really feel this should be added as an average. All hydro plants here in Norway have a defined average annual production.

Current reference is 1981-2010 and published in 2012. This is updated every 10 years.

The actual production is important as it will also show the efficiency of the plant.

Not many plants reach peak effect often or for very long, at least not hydro and wind. Gazer75 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say such information isn't valuable and interesting. But OSM isn't designed to store them as it's time defined data.

A more sustainable way to gather both of static and dynamic data about power plant is to use ref:EU:ENTSOE_EIC=* (for European facilities) and link to external file Fanfouer (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea how that works. I can't find anything relating to production values for plants at ENTSOE.

Have a look to their transparency platform Fanfouer (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The average production values change every 10 years so not very often.Gazer75 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite not very often, we may have to update this external data instead of link it with a stable identifier. It's a lot of work for every plant Fanfouer (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The amount of electrical energy produced may depend on the price for which it could be sold. It also may depend if the operator has to switch the generator off for ecological reasons. Those effects are beyond the scope of a map. --Hb 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

industrial=*

What industrial=* subtag would be good for such places? maro21 17:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't really feel like it needs one, as the presence of the power= tag already provides that information. TagInfo says industrial=electrical and industrial=power have both been used about 140 times each. Russss (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If it would be required to define one, industrial=power is the only possibility. landuse=industrial + industrial=power + power=plant and so on...

As Russss, I don't feel like we need it either. Fanfouer (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

"Relations should only be used when no perimeter surrounds the generators." What exactly does this mean? What constitutes a perimeter? And why is this necessary? I find it strange if a group of wind turbines are each individually fenced off in an area that is being farmed, that those same wind turbines could not be grouped together in a relation.--IanVG (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit: In addition, I think that the tagging suggestion for when and how a relation can be applied needs to be rethought. When a solar photovoltaic farm has hundreds, if not, thousands of individual solar farms (which by this schema would each be considered a generator) the relation could at best be tedious to implement and at worst actively discourage the formation of relations to group together these elements.

What if there are two solar farms (enclosing a bunch of the individual panels)- could those two separately enclosed (let's say with a fence, and let's say the operators were positively identified to be the same) solar farms be joined into a multipolygon with a relation? It seems to me that would be a valid use of the relation. Any thoughts?--IanVG (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @IanVG:. It's not so complicated : a perimeter surrounding generators pretty always means a fenced barrier preventing individuals and animals to get in the plant premises.

When a single perimeter is found around the whole plant site, a simple way with power=plant is enough. Example with 85203514 85203514.

When several perimeters are found surrounding all generators in different and independant areas, a multipolygon does the job. Example with 3501886 3501886

When no perimeter is found at all, a type=site relation involves all relevant components of the plant. Example with 4500049 4500049.

Did you find any missing situation in Tag:power=plant#Examples? Fanfouer (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agrivoltaic farms (solar + agricultural)

In the near future, new areas combining a solar plant and agricultural use will probably appear. I think that this will require new tagging as well as map rendering schemes.--Hlv (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They already exist now, especially for grazing. Also aquavoltaics (aquaculture + photovoltaics). —— Kovposch (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)