Talk:Wind farms

"each generator as empty role"

I believe that the consensus is for the relation role to be 'generator' - Jnicho02 (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jnicho02: What has drawn you to this conclusion? This would cause mappers to do extra work without any benefit.--Constantino (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

True, you could argue that a turbine with power:generator tag implicitly specifies the role. But where we have wind_farm relations with more types of things: access paths; substation; anemometer; radio mast; it becomes more useful and complete to specify explicitly. Also, looking at Cefn Croes 2924301 2924301 for example, you can see the members and roles without having to 'click through' to each related object. I am happy to change my initial comment to: I believe that the consensus in the UK is for the relation role to be 'generator' Jnicho02 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jnicho02: I couldn't imagine that people would put more things than the actual turbines and the substation into a relation tagged as power plant [1]. Merry Christmas, BTW!--Constantino (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

landuse=windfarm proposal

@Jengelh: Hi! I saw your addition of the proposal box with the tag landuse=windfarm and got some confusion: IMHO the page is not a proposal for this tag. In fact, this tag is not part of the description on the page. Therefore the proposal box is confusing to me and I would like to suggest to remove that proposal. You could add the tag landuse=windfarm as {{PossibleSynonym|landuse|windfarm}} at the end of the page. What do you think? --Chris2map (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This wiki page exists since 2018, but the tagging scheme has neither been established (I.) through voting, nor (II.) through contributors making use of it in the map. The {{proposal}} box, which includes a taginfo subbox, was just a quick way to present both these circumstances for the page. Perhaps for uninitiated, we need to spell it out that this page's tagging proposal is unsupported and should not be employed at this time. Jengelh (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I see. To make clear that there is no general established scheme is a good thing anyway. Though on this page "Wind farms" I would make those notes and descriptions, not a proposal. The scheme here is site=wind_farm, isn't it? To me it does make sense to list the tags and schemes that are in use on this page Wind farms and show there usage (with {{Taginfo2}}). From there, in a next step, are proposal could be created (on a Proposal: page). --Chris2map (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)