The surprising bit at SOTM-EU over the weekend was just how hilariously unaware both Linux Foundation members and representatives were that their main effect will be stomping out a whole raft of SMEs, and the sudden realisation by the victims that US big tech and their non-profit front are not their friends.

Despite such a question may be naive, it deserves to be asked here: in case the effects that had been feared many times here are currently real, what had we (or the victims) done as a community to prevent that?

We should face our own confusion between frugality and being stuck in a lack of tools to manage our own data prior to criticize too quickly some challengers that arise. Let’s focus on challenges to tackle instead of crying about disruption we could be part of, again.

Hello

It is a great work, thank you to have published this here.

I second your post and mention this wiki page for anyone interested in mapping hydropower facilities. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_generation/Hydropower

Many additional features between lakes and power house generally remain to be mapped.

All the best

Hi and thank you for comments

One next big achievement would be to fully deploy Data Items. They allow many more power regarding tagging documentation than current toolchain based upon parsing of wikicode.

It’s not necessary a work to be done by Foundation, it could only lead that (and should pay someone for that).

Allowing third parties to get interested in OSM tagging as consistent semantic space need to be done with well described and accessible metadata.

We’re currently discussion about charging infrastructure on community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/charging-stations-sites-or-individual-chargers/96810

It’s back online.

Read only waiting to migrate to a newer server

Hello Thank you and merry Christmas

The server may seek for holidays too (without any prior notice), I’ll check that when I come back next week :)

Hi

I’ve spend couple of months to map many power substations in France https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/179260933 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89034196 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82741307

With power stuff but also 450 trees, 422.3 hectares of grasslands, parkings… 16% of major French substations is covered with grass https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/392777

Hi Marco

Thank you to have noted this problem, not only about taginfo but every consumer of wikicode.

Wikibase and dataitems has been set up in osm ecosystem to solve the exact issue the wikimedia community had before. Translation and lack of consistency between langage pages encourage us to make some information converge.

Discussions already been held around taginfo to add dataitems support with no results so far. Poor quality of editing UI in wikibase dicourage was raised against wide dataitems adoption. Adding support in taginfo would bring additional visibility and would makes us move forward. Not to mention dataitems could completely be NSI 2.0 as well.

I hope we could tackle this supplementary step and stop this strugle with wiki translation in comming months. Dataitems are essential in making osm ontology more visible, usable as a standard data model.

Best regards

Here are some thoughts about this. Thank you for summarizing this all here, while it’s hard to get involved in every discussions in mailing-lists,

An important that didn’t shown up so far is discoverability and ability to map with several tagging schema used.

Tagging convergence can also encourage mapping and actually increase mappers engagement, in ways that would have been impossible with unclear, duplicated or still-used deprecated tagging.

Examples: * The first world-scale replacement I’ve been involved in: power=sub_station to power=substation. power=sub_station: 110 000 objects in 6 years power=substation: 520 000 objects in 8 years Growth rate has been increased by 3.5 times. Data quality improved a lot too.

• One of more recent replacement that come to my mind: tower:type=anchor to line_attachment=anchor tower:type=anchor: 13 000 objects in 6 years (5 000 remains) line_attachment=anchor: 52 000 objects in 2 years Growth rate has been increased by 12 times, by encouraging mapping new locations as approx. 25% existing remains to be moved.

• Not to mention replacement of waterway=riverbank with natural=water + water=river during last 2 years with already more water=river than legacy riverbanks.

• And so on, …

Tagging replacement is a tool among many others, that could be used by the community to improve things. Despite I admit, like any tool, it could be misused, how can one state tagging replacement is globally bad or letting duplicate tagging scheme without convergence perspective isn’t critical? Not to mention the tool we discuss about is used in regard of a seek of consensus and not enforced, discussed every time.

That could be good as well to provide figures like I do to discuss such points. Please provide facts. Many discussions held so far only deal with qualitative facts “tagging should or shouldn’t” but not so often about what has been actually achieved by many other people in the past.

Endlessly confronting groups of people, mappers, consumers, experts, beginners, developers, users (we all experiment each of them at different times) instead of producing common material, data, tagging, is a constant cause of failing in the most deceptive way we could imagine.

That is so great to read Congrats for this great achievement :)

Hi Oponka

Here you go : https://openinframap.org/#2/26/12 It’s a special render of live OSM data

Sure it’s a great render to see what OSM knows about infrastructure worldwide :)

utack, we can find actually some signs on the surface on top of underground infrastructures. This can be a sort of ground verifiability. Like you I think that opendata can be an alternative of ground verifiability. Anyway, OSM tagging modal can describe things even if they are not always visible on the ground as to provide sustainable and consistent model.

Thanks escada for kind comment, there is still a lot of work to do :)

This is great :) Thanks !

Hi Gianluca

You may have a look to the man_made=street_cabinet tag for connection points Such cabinet may be described with : Man_made=street_cabinet Street_cabinet=telecom Telecom=connection_point Telecom:medium=copper

Regarding central offices, there is actually a draft proposal on wiki by Zz29.

That would be great to map such things indeed Have fun !

Cheers

Hi,

Thank you for dealing with power infrastructure on OSM :)

All the model regarding power generation was discussed on a wiki proposal Have a look to the Power Generation refinement proposal document.

Generator:source and generator:method weren’t only introduced for wind turbines. Many other share the stage and this was a consistent way to let them all co-exist. Furthermore, room left for any other technique than method=wind_turbine to convert energy from wind.

I never heard of any “wind_farm” relation. If the farm actually exists as a whole, please add power=plant to your relation as described on this key’s page. Some other infos can be added like the total output power of the facility with plant:output:electricity

Feel free to contact me for any question : fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com or User:Fanfouer on wiki.

All the best