No invention needed. Simply use the name the chain uses in its database and/or maps. Those tend to be quite descriptive and good.

Tbh I don't care what you do in Sweden as I'm not going there anytime soon. But good to know I should use Google instead if going there :P

At least we got a good naming system here in Norway that works well with all car navigation systems and apps.

I'm not going to continue this discussion as I've already made my point.

In order for the OSM database to be usable we can't do weird things like leave name= blank because we move "Tesla Superchager" to the osm.wiki/Tag:brand=. Do that and you can't search for the charger at all in navigation systems in cars or phone apps.

Why are you talking about a building?
That is totally different.

I'm talking names of chargers and shops/fuel stations that have locations all over the place.

If you only put name=St1 in all fuel stations then a search for fuel will return a long list of St1 and nothing else.
How do I know which one it is near Kungãlv when there are like 4 around the area with the same name?

Did you even read what I wrote?

If the name field only contains "Tesla Supercharger" for all superchargers then a search in navigation will only show a list with that, nothing else.
You probably also get the distance to that location, but nothing more.
So my question is, how do you know what charger is where?

And what do you think happens if a user searches for Tesla chargers in the navigation in the car or app? They will just get a long list of Tesla Supercharger and nothing more. How is the user supposed to figure out where they are unless they check each one?

The silly on the ground rule is fine for some things, but to be able to get a meaningful search result when navigating the name field need to be more descriptive.

AFAIK Tesla themselves use the location in the name if you search in the navigation system, so why not OSM?

As you probably figured out, I'm not a fan of mapping hydro power stations as sites regardless. I could maybe accept it if the whole site relation thing was better defined, but probably not.

If you want to keep doing it like this I can't stop you, but I'll hand over power mapping. I can't be part of a mapping practice I don't agree with.

There are around 900-1000 hydro power stations still missing that I had planned to map.

If a consumer is using generators as center point, what happens if generators are missing? Not all plants have generators defined as they might not be known.

Unless there is a proper system for site relation with roles aimed at power plants for each component it is going to be a mess for them to figure out the center point.

There is no consensus on this as the site relation never considered the vast areas covered by hydro plants and its tunnels and reservoirs.

I have reverted old mapping using site for hydro plants due to this and only used site for wind farms.

As long as there is no defined center point for a site relation on hydro plants, using relation will cause a big mess and a very ugly map.
The site relation has also never been through a proposal for power or voting process.

Please don't use site relation for hydro plants. This is more for wind farms. There is no defined main point in the current system so looking up hydro plants using this can cause the center point to be off my many kilometers. Some hydro plants have tunnels and reservoirs in a 100 square km area or more.

Simply tag the building, or turbine hall if under ground, with the appropriate tags.

How did you find all the solar panels?

I've also noticed that you've misplaced a lot of them because you've completely ignored image perspective. You can't just add the panel on tall buildings right at the the spot in the image if the photo is taken at an angle.

Removed a 166km long duplicate 400kV line north of Karlstad causing the large changeset area.

Apparently you can hold Alt when clicking to place node when in way more to avoid connecting to existing elements.
osm.wiki/ID/Shortcuts

Just don't place a node at the point the line goes over/under unrelated data. You risk linking them together.
I am not very familiar with the iD editor as I went to JOSM early on. In JOSM I can use Ctrl when placing nodes creating a way to keep it from accidentally connecting to nearby ways.

Please be more careful when editing things. You managed to change a power=line to higway=path and connected it to several tracks and paths that go under it.

We don't tag all roads that are part of a national highway or E roads as trunk. If its a resting area or bus terminal with limited access it will get the service tag.

Please stop breaking landuse relations. If you don't know how to map with relations, then read up on it and use JOSM that can is much better at dealing with them.

Please don't use garden for residential areas. This is better used for public gardens. It is also conflicting with residential landuse.

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/21566

Nice find!

Could probably make a ticket for JOSM asking to add this to validator. It is very much needed.
Taginfo shows 2378 uses so far as well, so its not that rare.

I fully agree we should have a tag for these to help with validation. I'm not that good with formulating things and don't have enough wiki knowledge to add a proposal.