Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Ole Nielsen
The substation refinement proposal has been approved by a large majority
of voters. The new feature page can be found here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation

Afterwards I regret a bit that I didn't reserve a dedicated value in the
substation=* tag for the small street level substations (Trafohäuschen in
German). I used the IEC definitions that suggest that anything below 100
kV or so should be considered 'distribution'. It may have been better to
define this value only to cover the last level of transformation from
medium voltage to low voltage supplied to household customers. This would
address the concerns of some mappers, especially in central Europe, that
used the old "station" vs "sub_station" to distinguish this.

I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used
only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
small street-level transformer kiosks etc supplied with medium voltage
(typically 10-30 kV) and delivering low voltage power to households and
small businesses. A small substation would then be tagged as
power=substation and substation=distribution. Mappers could then
unambiguously tag such facilities without having to know the actual
voltage(s) employed in a given area. Tagging the voltage is still
recommended, though.

I would like to have opinions on this. If this change is made some
substations at the 'second level' such as 60/10 kV now tagged as
'distribution' should have this tag removed. The current suggestion that
small kiosk substations may be tagged as 'power=transformer' will then be
removed to avoid any confusion. Only pole mounted transformers will keep
their own tagging scheme (power=pole, transformer=yes/distribution).

Ole N




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

dieterdreist

2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used
only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
small street-level transformer kiosks etc supplied with medium voltage
(typically 10-30 kV) and delivering low voltage power to households and
small businesses.


IMHO the IEC are right with defining everything below 100kV as distribution, I wouldn't use this given term with a different meaning. Maybe you could add another term like local_distribution for the last level (Trafohäuschen), if you don't have confidence in the mappers tagging voltage levels. According to wikipedia:de there seem to be 4 agreed levels of power transport and distribution in Germany:

* 220kV/400kV (national transport, also DC)
* 110kV (regional transport)
* 30-60kV (regional distribution)
* 6-20kV (local distribution)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe

2013/10/12 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>

2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used
only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
small street-level transformer kiosks etc supplied with medium voltage
(typically 10-30 kV) and delivering low voltage power to households and
small businesses.

definitely +1
 
IMHO the IEC are right with defining everything below 100kV as distribution, I wouldn't use this given term with a different meaning.

I don't agree.

Imagine you find several 90 kV and 63 kV lines in such a substation connected with busbars.
Then, the operator can use this stuff to make power transit between lines of a given power level and use transformers to transit between both 90 kV and 63 kV.

That's transmission and not distribution obviously and it's below 100 kV.

Furthermore, we can't qualify of "distribution" voltage levels which accept industrial client feeding : CERN is connected to French 400 kV (and I hope everyone will agree 400 kV isn't distribution).


As far as i know, in France :

400 kV / 225 kV : national transport (RTE)
150 kV, 90 kV, 63 kV : regional transport (RTE)
20 kV, 400 V : local distribution (ERDF)


Cheers,

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Ole Nielsen
> 2013/10/12 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
>>
>> 2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used
>>> only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
>>> small street-level transformer kiosks etc supplied with medium voltage
>>> (typically 10-30 kV) and delivering low voltage power to households and
>>> small businesses.
>>
> definitely +1
>
>> IMHO the IEC are right with defining everything below 100kV as
>> distribution, I wouldn't use this given term with a different meaning.
>
> I don't agree.
>
> Imagine you find several 90 kV and 63 kV lines in such a substation
> connected with busbars.
> Then, the operator can use this stuff to make power transit between lines
> of a given power level and use transformers to transit between both 90 kV
> and 63 kV.
>
> That's transmission and not distribution obviously and it's below 100 kV.
>
> Furthermore, we can't qualify of "distribution" voltage levels which
> accept
> industrial client feeding : CERN is connected to French 400 kV (and I hope
> everyone will agree 400 kV isn't distribution).

I surely wouldn't associate CERN with "distribution". They may have their
own internal industrial distribution network but "substation=industrial"
is more appropriate for such internal facilities.

The idea behind "transmission" and "distribution" is to provide data
consumers a hint about the role of the substation without having to look
for the voltage tag (which may be missing or having multiple ;-separated
values). The 100 kV specified threshold is only a guideline and if the
mapper think that a 70 kV substation is mainly for transmission then it
may be indicated as such. Another example: 132/10 kV substations are not
uncommon in Denmark and they seem most appropriately to be considered
distribution stations.

Of course we are here talking about the final substations *for households
and small businesses* only being connected at the low voltage level, not
those feeding larger industrial customers at a higher voltage level.

I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "distribution". Martin
suggested "local_distribution" which is a bit long but otherwise a
possibility. Some other ideas: "local" or "minor"?. I am just looking for
a way to clearly distinguish those low voltage substations from other
substations.

BTW, "transformer=distribution" is currently defined as meaning a
transformer supplying low voltage!

Ole



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe

2013/10/13 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
I surely wouldn't associate CERN with "distribution". They may have their
own internal industrial distribution network but "substation=industrial"
is more appropriate for such internal facilities.

+1 substation=industrial
 
The idea behind "transmission" and "distribution" is to provide data
consumers a hint about the role of the substation without having to look
for the voltage tag (which may be missing or having multiple ;-separated
values). The 100 kV specified threshold is only a guideline and if the
mapper think that a 70 kV substation is mainly for transmission then it
may be indicated as such. Another example: 132/10 kV substations are not
uncommon in Denmark and they seem most appropriately to be considered
distribution stations.

The question is to know which is the target of that kind of "hint" and will everyone will understand it as such ?

You're assuming 132 kV/10 kV substation are for distribution because you find 10 kV inside but operator can use it a way OSM won't know.

That's why I'm tagging substation=transmission each time voltage goes above 30 kV inside the substation. IMHO
 
I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "distribution". Martin
suggested "local_distribution" which is a bit long but otherwise a
possibility. Some other ideas: "local" or "minor"?. I am just looking for
a way to clearly distinguish those low voltage substations from other
substations.

 
BTW, "transformer=distribution" is currently defined as meaning a
transformer supplying low voltage!
 
I'm ok with that.



François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe
Render update ticket has been created on git hub :

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230


Cheers.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/10/13 François Lacombe <[hidden email]>

2013/10/13 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
I surely wouldn't associate CERN with "distribution". They may have their
own internal industrial distribution network but "substation=industrial"
is more appropriate for such internal facilities.

+1 substation=industrial
 
The idea behind "transmission" and "distribution" is to provide data
consumers a hint about the role of the substation without having to look
for the voltage tag (which may be missing or having multiple ;-separated
values). The 100 kV specified threshold is only a guideline and if the
mapper think that a 70 kV substation is mainly for transmission then it
may be indicated as such. Another example: 132/10 kV substations are not
uncommon in Denmark and they seem most appropriately to be considered
distribution stations.

The question is to know which is the target of that kind of "hint" and will everyone will understand it as such ?

You're assuming 132 kV/10 kV substation are for distribution because you find 10 kV inside but operator can use it a way OSM won't know.

That's why I'm tagging substation=transmission each time voltage goes above 30 kV inside the substation. IMHO
 
I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "distribution". Martin
suggested "local_distribution" which is a bit long but otherwise a
possibility. Some other ideas: "local" or "minor"?. I am just looking for
a way to clearly distinguish those low voltage substations from other
substations.

 
BTW, "transformer=distribution" is currently defined as meaning a
transformer supplying low voltage!
 
I'm ok with that.



François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe
Hi,

I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for : http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line

There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with public transport.

Thus, and I'm sorry to suggest that just 2 weeks after the end of the vote, power:line=* wouldn't be better for busbar and bay ?
I'm planning to use this for some stuff in power transmission refinement.

Let me know, cheers.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/10/15 François Lacombe <[hidden email]>
Render update ticket has been created on git hub :

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230


Cheers.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/10/13 François Lacombe <[hidden email]>

2013/10/13 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email]>
I surely wouldn't associate CERN with "distribution". They may have their
own internal industrial distribution network but "substation=industrial"
is more appropriate for such internal facilities.

+1 substation=industrial
 
The idea behind "transmission" and "distribution" is to provide data
consumers a hint about the role of the substation without having to look
for the voltage tag (which may be missing or having multiple ;-separated
values). The 100 kV specified threshold is only a guideline and if the
mapper think that a 70 kV substation is mainly for transmission then it
may be indicated as such. Another example: 132/10 kV substations are not
uncommon in Denmark and they seem most appropriately to be considered
distribution stations.

The question is to know which is the target of that kind of "hint" and will everyone will understand it as such ?

You're assuming 132 kV/10 kV substation are for distribution because you find 10 kV inside but operator can use it a way OSM won't know.

That's why I'm tagging substation=transmission each time voltage goes above 30 kV inside the substation. IMHO
 
I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "distribution". Martin
suggested "local_distribution" which is a bit long but otherwise a
possibility. Some other ideas: "local" or "minor"?. I am just looking for
a way to clearly distinguish those low voltage substations from other
substations.

 
BTW, "transformer=distribution" is currently defined as meaning a
transformer supplying low voltage!
 
I'm ok with that.



François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Ole Nielsen
On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote:

> I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to
> do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for :
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line
>
> There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with
> public transport.
>
> Thus, and I'm sorry to suggest that just 2 weeks after the end of the
> vote, power:line=* wouldn't be better for busbar and bay ?
> I'm planning to use this for some stuff in power transmission refinement.

I can't see any problems. line=* is indeed used a lot on public
transport features (mostly nodes (bus stops?) and relations). But there
shouldn't be any chance of confusion since the two contexts are so
different. In both situations (power and public transport) 'line' is
used only as an additional tag. It would indeed have been a problem if
'line' was a main tag used for identifying the type of feature. But that
is not the case here. 'power=*' is never used on public transport
features and vice versa.

Further line=busbar/bay follows the established practice of using the
main tag value as a key in an additional tag (power=line, line=busbar).
No need to make things more complex if there are no real conflicts.

Ole

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe
Ok.

So I will move to line=junction_box et line=marker (like pipeline=valve and pipeline=marker).

Thank you.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/10/16 Ole Nielsen <[hidden email]>
On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote:
I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to
do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for :
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line

There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with
public transport.

Thus, and I'm sorry to suggest that just 2 weeks after the end of the
vote, power:line=* wouldn't be better for busbar and bay ?
I'm planning to use this for some stuff in power transmission refinement.

I can't see any problems. line=* is indeed used a lot on public transport features (mostly nodes (bus stops?) and relations). But there shouldn't be any chance of confusion since the two contexts are so different. In both situations (power and public transport) 'line' is used only as an additional tag. It would indeed have been a problem if 'line' was a main tag used for identifying the type of feature. But that is not the case here. 'power=*' is never used on public transport features and vice versa.

Further line=busbar/bay follows the established practice of using the main tag value as a key in an additional tag (power=line, line=busbar). No need to make things more complex if there are no real conflicts.


Ole

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Ole Nielsen
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
I have now introduced a specific attribute for small substations:
substation=minor_distribution. It is exclusively to be used on the 'last
level' of transformation to low voltage line voltage (400 volt in
Europe). This should address the desire to have an unambiguous way of
tagging small kiosk-type etc substations. At the same time the
recommendation to map such small substations as power=transformer has
been removed from the feature page (except for pole-mounted transformers).

See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation#Substation_values

Ole
On 12/10/2013 13:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> 2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used
>     only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
>     small street-level transformer kiosks etc supplied with medium voltage
>     (typically 10-30 kV) and delivering low voltage power to households and
>     small businesses.
>
>
>
> IMHO the IEC are right with defining everything below 100kV as
> distribution, I wouldn't use this given term with a different meaning.
> Maybe you could add another term like local_distribution for the last
> level (Trafohäuschen), if you don't have confidence in the mappers
> tagging voltage levels. According to wikipedia:de there seem to be 4
> agreed levels of power transport and distribution in Germany:
>
> * 220kV/400kV (national transport, also DC)
> * 110kV (regional transport)
> * 30-60kV (regional distribution)
> * 6-20kV (local distribution)
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umspannwerk
>
> cheers,
> Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

bredy
but why is not possible to change all the sub_station in substation if the old value is deprecated?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

François Lacombe
It's a good thing to have a look to each sub_station feature.

It allows use to add substation=*, location=*, voltage=* and a few more at the same time. Which improve a lot our dataset.

If we automatically replace all sub_station power values, we won't be able to distinguish "old" from "new" features.

It's not only a deprecation matter here.

François Lacombe

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com


2013/11/23 bredy <[hidden email]>
but why is not possible to change all the sub_station in substation if the
old value is deprecated?



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Substation-proposal-approved-and-a-suggestion-for-a-post-vote-change-tp5781224p5786932.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by bredy
Hi,

On 23.11.2013 11:33, bredy wrote:
> but why is not possible to change all the sub_station in substation if the
> old value is deprecated?

Tagging proposals do not have the power to "deprecate" existing tags,
and I have changed the wiki pages accordingly. Using the wording "this
tag has now been deprecated" always leads to someone trying to make a
mass change but we don't want that.

A successful proposal is only the first stage in the acceptance of a new
tag. Just because a new tag has been voted in by 20 people doesn't mean
that the edits of 2000 people can now be automatically changed. The new
tag will either "prove" itself by being used, or it won't. Automatically
removing the "deprecated" old version is cheating. Don't do it, at least
not without prior discussion and large acceptance in the community.

A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL IS NEVER A LICENSE FOR AN AUTOMATED CHANGE OF
EXISTING TAGS. NEVER. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE PROPOSAL CONTAINS THE
WORD "DEPRECATED".

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

Clifford Snow

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tagging proposals do not have the power to "deprecate" existing tags,
and I have changed the wiki pages accordingly. Using the wording "this
tag has now been deprecated" always leads to someone trying to make a
mass change but we don't want that.

It is understandable to avoid mass updates just because 20 people voted in favor of a different tag. However, what the wiki post on deprecated doesn't describe is when is it appropriate to change tags? Is it ok to change one or ten remaining tags to reflect the current tag? Is it a percentage of use? For example, if amenity=bakery only accounted for 5% of the total shop=bakery + amenity=bakery, would it be ok to change? Right now amenity=bakery is less than 1% of the total uses of bakery. 

The reason I ask is to simplify searching. Certainly in the case of bakery, a 1% error might be tolerable in most instances. However, if the query was from a small bbox, the results could be significant. 

Wouldn't it be better if we had a policy that explicitly sets a threshold when it is appropriate to change the tag? I am not suggesting that I disagree with your wiki page, what I am looking for is discussion on when it is appropriate to update tags.


--
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging