Solar tagging app
Locked
 
|
Hi folks,
I got annoyed with tagging the number of modules in solar generators, so I put together a quick crowdsourcing app to collect this data: https://solartagger.russss.dev/ It's definitely a lot quicker than trying to do this in an editor! Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update this list once that is happening. Cheers, -- Russ Garrett [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
Thanks Russ!
I was only thinking of a similar idea just the other day. I've already gone through probably a couple of hundred installations. Perhaps a future extensions could allow: - A "Are you sure that's a PV system?" option -- I've seen perhaps a couple where I'm not sure whether it's actually a PV system. Perhaps a check from another imagery source, or a ground survey, could clear things up? - Click twice to measure the orientation (although perhaps more suited to using on a computer, rather than a mobile / tablet?) Cheers, Gregory On Sun, 2020-10-04 at 15:41 +0100, Russ Garrett wrote: > Hi folks, > > I got annoyed with tagging the number of modules in solar generators, > so I put together a quick crowdsourcing app to collect this data: > > https://solartagger.russss.dev/ > > It's definitely a lot quicker than trying to do this in an editor! > > Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll > batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update > this list once that is happening. > > Cheers, > Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
Thanks! We've got about 1000 agreed module counts now, which I'm now
working on batching up and submitting as an edit. On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 17:13, Gregory Williams <[hidden email]> wrote: > - A "Are you sure that's a PV system?" option -- I've seen perhaps a > couple where I'm not sure whether it's actually a PV system. Perhaps a > check from another imagery source, or a ground survey, could clear > things up? I was originally planning to add multiple "skip" options but I decided to keep it simple. I have the data on which generators are being consistently skipped though, so we can potentially go through those later to try and find nonexistent/mistagged things. > - Click twice to measure the orientation (although perhaps more suited > to using on a computer, rather than a mobile / tablet?) Orientation is next on my list when I get a moment (probably not imminently). It'll likely be a separate task from the module-counting one. Location is also another task which I could potentially add. Russ -- Russ Garrett [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
Nice job Russ. Have/can you add a paragraph to the OSMWiki Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom page please (or the solar-specific page?). - Jez On Mon, 5 Oct 2020, 17:46 Russ Garrett, <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks! We've got about 1000 agreed module counts now, which I'm now _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Garrett
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 15:41, Russ Garrett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll > batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update > this list once that is happening. We now have around 1500 nodes with agreed module counts. I've started submitting these to OSM and an example changeset on 20 nodes is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92055795 (The "imagery_used: Bing" and "bot: yes" changeset tags will also be added to future changesets.) I will pause for a few hours in case anyone spots any issues with this, but it should be fairly straightforward. I have also added the appropriate wiki page to document these automated edits: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/solartagger Cheers, -- Russ Garrett [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Garrett
On 04/10/2020 15:41, Russ Garrett wrote:
> Once we have panel counts that multiple people have agreed on, I'll > batch insert the data into OSM using a new account - I will update > this list once that is happening. I've just spent a couple of days working on Vale Park, Evesham and many of the units have panels on the roofs, so I think that is next on my list to do ... problem is I've not mapped these before, so what is my best starting point re adding them. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 16:42, Lester Caine <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've just spent a couple of days working on Vale Park, Evesham and many > of the units have panels on the roofs, so I think that is next on my > list to do ... problem is I've not mapped these before, so what is my > best starting point re adding them. All the info you need is (hopefully) here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV Cheers, -- Russ Garrett [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
On 06/10/2020 16:44, Russ Garrett wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV One difference I make vs. that is "direction" rather than "generator:orientation". In iD, at least, you get a nice visual of the view-angle then. I use a point and a module-count. If it's flat, I use "tilted:no" rather than a direction. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YLx is my current "look for missing tags" hunter. Pick your area then hit the Run button. -- Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
Let's officially change over to "direction" then. I've edited the wiki
page to reflect that. Best Dan Op di 6 okt. 2020 om 19:40 schreef Jeremy Harris <[hidden email]>: > > On 06/10/2020 16:44, Russ Garrett wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV > > One difference I make vs. that is "direction" rather than > "generator:orientation". In iD, at least, you get a nice visual > of the view-angle then. > > I use a point and a module-count. If it's flat, I use "tilted:no" > rather than a direction. > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YLx is my current "look for missing > tags" hunter. Pick your area then hit the Run button. > -- > Cheers, > Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
I've now got round to updating the code on my solar comparison site to
cater for these different ways of tagging the orientation. It considers these tags in this order: - generator:orientation=* - direction=* - tilted=no Regular users of the site may have noticed that I also recently added counts of mapped orientations and module counts to the chart on the summary page. A noticeable jump in the counts for orientation should be seen in tomorrow morning's update. Cheers, Gregory On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 20:44 +0100, Dan S wrote: > Let's officially change over to "direction" then. I've edited the > wiki > page to reflect that. > > Best > Dan > > Op di 6 okt. 2020 om 19:40 schreef Jeremy Harris <[hidden email]>: > > On 06/10/2020 16:44, Russ Garrett wrote: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV > > > > One difference I make vs. that is "direction" rather than > > "generator:orientation". In iD, at least, you get a nice visual > > of the view-angle then. > > > > I use a point and a module-count. If it's flat, I use "tilted:no" > > rather than a direction. > > > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YLx is my current "look for missing > > tags" hunter. Pick your area then hit the Run button. > > -- > > Cheers, > > Jeremy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [hidden email] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
On 19/10/2020 20:14, Gregory Williams wrote:
> I've now got round to updating the code on my solar comparison site Suggestion for further improvement: When a building is identifiable associated with a set of generators, only count one for comparison against the FIT data. Then (say) a house with panels on two different roof-faces will not over-count for the geographical region. (I just found an LSOA with 4 of 13 mapped. But 2 were on one home. A terrace too, so now I must split it, so the 1 on another home in the block is really distinct) -- Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 15:17 +0000, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 20:14, Gregory Williams wrote: > > I've now got round to updating the code on my solar comparison site > Suggestion for further improvement: When a building is identifiable > associated with a set of generators, only count one for comparison > against the FIT data. Then (say) a house with panels on two > different > roof-faces will not over-count for the geographical region. > > (I just found an LSOA with 4 of 13 mapped. But 2 were on one home. > A terrace too, so now I must split it, so the 1 on another home in > the block is really distinct) Jeremy, That certainly is one reason why the "completeness" figure is just a guide, rather than an absolute. Perhaps you've seen that there are, for example, some regions that have greater than 100% "completeness", and I'm sure that multiple installations on a property does contribute to this. Comparison with the FiT register will always never be perfect, since as external observers we don't really know whether the multiple sets of modules on a property are part of the same or separate FiT contracts. If the multiple instances on property have the same roof orientation then you could use a multipolygon to collate those instances together. Obviously this wouldn't be suitable for the multiple-roof scenario that you describe, though. You've also, pointed towards one of the gotchas that only counting a single installation per property would currently have in many places. We've got plenty of places where a terrace of houses have only been mapped as a single building. Thus several installations, each on separate properties, would only appear to be one installation when on a single terrace building. It does, of course, give an incentive to go out and map the addresses individually, of course! :-) I'll consider how implementing this may be done in the code, but I think it'll need some general tidying of it first; so wouldn't necessarily be available straight away. BTW, the code does actually do something similar already wrt solar farms, to avoid overcounting the individual lines of modules in a plant. Cheers, Gregory _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy Harris
On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 15:17 +0000, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 20:14, Gregory Williams wrote: > > I've now got round to updating the code on my solar comparison site > Suggestion for further improvement: When a building is identifiable > associated with a set of generators, only count one for comparison > against the FIT data. Then (say) a house with panels on two > different > roof-faces will not over-count for the geographical region. > > (I just found an LSOA with 4 of 13 mapped. But 2 were on one home. > A terrace too, so now I must split it, so the 1 on another home in > the block is really distinct) I've finally managed to find the time to update my comparison tool [1] to take this into account. Columns now show for both "Generator count" and "Filtered generator count". The latter only counts a generator once if there are multiple on the same building. That's the one that now gets used in Completeness calculation. As a result the overall completeness has gone down from 35.76% to 32.00% for today's refreshed update. So, now, excessively high levels of completeness may be down to modules having been mapped on different orientations of the same building, but the underlying building not mapped itself. Now, low levels of completion may be because the building mapping isn't complete. For example modules mapped on several different addresses in a terrace, but the terrace building not split up into those separate building ways. I hope all are enjoying the Christmas break, Gregory [1] https://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/ _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
On Sun, 2020-12-27 at 22:38 +0000, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 15:17 +0000, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > On 19/10/2020 20:14, Gregory Williams wrote: > > > I've now got round to updating the code on my solar comparison > > > site > > Suggestion for further improvement: When a building is > > identifiable > > associated with a set of generators, only count one for comparison > > against the FIT data. Then (say) a house with panels on two > > different > > roof-faces will not over-count for the geographical region. > > > > (I just found an LSOA with 4 of 13 mapped. But 2 were on one home. > > A terrace too, so now I must split it, so the 1 on another home in > > the block is really distinct) > > I've finally managed to find the time to update my comparison tool > [1] > to take this into account. Columns now show for both "Generator > count" > and "Filtered generator count". The latter only counts a generator > once > if there are multiple on the same building. That's the one that now > gets used in Completeness calculation. > > As a result the overall completeness has gone down from 35.76% to > 32.00% for today's refreshed update. > > So, now, excessively high levels of completeness may be down to > modules > having been mapped on different orientations of the same building, > but > the underlying building not mapped itself. > > Now, low levels of completion may be because the building mapping > isn't > complete. For example modules mapped on several different addresses > in > a terrace, but the terrace building not split up into those separate > building ways. > > I hope all are enjoying the Christmas break, > > Gregory > > [1] https://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/ > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Eagle-eyed Brian Prangle spotted that the filtering to avoid extra counting of installations on the same building wasn't quite working in some of the areas that he's been editing. Thanks for making me aware, Brian. I investigated this evening and found the cause of the issue and have now resolved it. For cases where a solar installation was also mapped as a building, and where that building shared common vertices with other buildings (such as a terrace), the other buildings in that terrace were also being mistakenly adding to the count. Nationally, this has only made a small difference to the count (was 278138, now xx), but enough to be visible on the progress chart. And, of course, enough to give a false impression of completeness on the local level in affected areas. Gregory _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
|
|
[Snip]
> > Eagle-eyed Brian Prangle spotted that the filtering to avoid extra > counting of installations on the same building wasn't quite working > in > some of the areas that he's been editing. Thanks for making me aware, > Brian. > > I investigated this evening and found the cause of the issue and have > now resolved it. For cases where a solar installation was also mapped > as a building, and where that building shared common vertices with > other buildings (such as a terrace), the other buildings in that > terrace were also being mistakenly adding to the count. > > Nationally, this has only made a small difference to the count (was > 278138, now xx), but enough to be visible on the progress chart. And, > of course, enough to give a false impression of completeness on the > local level in affected areas. > > Gregory > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb xx, of course, should have read 276820 :-) Gregory _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb |
«
Return to Great Britain
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |