harahu (2022-02-13 16:42:57+00:00): Not sure I recognise the vastness of these plants as a problem. That seems to apply to wind farms as well. See for instance this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11343101#map=11/53.9769/1.7080 In fact, it seems this quality of being spread out over a large area is exactly why you might want to use a site relation, rather than an area. At least from my understanding of the site relation. I recognise that the _rendering_ as a large, odd-shaped multi-polygon is problematic, but this is a _choice_ made by the data consumer, and I don't want to adapt my mapping style only to please a renderer, if I feel I lose accuracy in the process. I'll get back to what I mean by that.

As for consensus, I can't say there seems to be a consensus against it either. This approved proposal describes mapping hydro power as site relations, for instance, which seems to contradict what you are saying regarding voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement#Dispersed_facilities_power_plants

> 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.

I disagree with this. In fact, I think the data consumer benefits from having the freedom and flexibility to decide on where to put the center point themselves, rather than having the mapper do it for them. There is an analogy here to how we, as mappers, don't decide where or how the name of a lake is rendered. Instead, different renderers use different approaches to decide on this, depending on their priorities. This  will cause a big mess and a very ugly map, only if the consumer makes poor choices with the data they are given access to. If we want better rendering, we should direct our efforts at helping renderers make better choices with the data at hand.

> If a consumer is using generators as center point, what happens if generators are missing?
Then you could fall back to something else, like the substation connecting the plant to the grid, or perhaps the dam(s), depending on what makes more sense. Finally you could fall back to the full plant center point, if nothing else makes sense, but that would indeed be one weird power plant.

> 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.
I don't think that is needed. In many ways the elements themselves contain the information you need. Something tagged as being a dam, or a reservoir, and is part of a hydro plant, is presumably storing water for said plant. Similarly, headraces or tailraces are usually tagged with a usage tag. Unless a category of members can play multiple roles, and this isn't tagged directly on the members,  I'm not sure specifying the role is needed.

So, in summary, I recognise that this power plant looks ugly on openinframap right now. I sympathise with wanting it to look differently, and do so myself. In that regard, I am your ally.

I just disagree with you that the database should change to facilitate that, and want the renderer to improve instead. I have explained why I think the renderer is making poor choices. Now, let me explain why I actually prefer mapping with the site relation, and think it makes for more accurate data.

Reason 1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
- I consider dams, reservoirs, transfer tunnels and penstocks as part of a hydro power plant, and I don't think that is controversial. These are man-made structures with the sole purpose of facilitating power generation at the plant's generator(s).- I can represent this on the map by either drawing a really big area, if there is a perimeter, but in this case there is not, so the alternative is then a site relation.- So, in order to map this power plant, with all its parts, I have no choice but to do what I have done. IMO drawing a smaller area around only the generators is actually lying about the full extent of the infrastructure needed to generate the power.

Reason 2: Giving context to other mappers.
When coming across a dam, or a reservoir, either in real life, or on map, I can often find myself asking, what role does this play in a larger system? The benefit of the mapping style I've used here becomes apparent when looking at these items in an editor. This reservoir: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4833629 now gives me a link to the larger power plant relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13697166#map=13/60.5680/5.6134, which means I can understand what is going on at a system level so much quicker.

These are the benefits I don't want to lose in order to help the renderer out. I hope you can also see why I think this is valuable.

I'm not sure what I would advise the next steps to be. I was going to suggest creating an issue with openinframap, but I see you've already done so: https://github.com/openinframap/openinframap/issues/20, without being met with much response. That makes me sad.