Four numbers that should not be confused
Points reported by OpenStreetMap contributors. Useful for discovery, but incomplete.
A site's designed IT or electrical load, often private, estimated, phased, or reported in different ways.
Electricity consumed across a balancing region at a moment or interval, not by one facility.
Rated power-plant equipment capability. It does not represent power reserved for data centers.
Where community reports are concentrated
The current map contains 749 community-reported data-center locations. The table describes mapping coverage, not a definitive market ranking.
| Rank | State | Mapped locations | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia | 154 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 2 | Oregon | 111 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 3 | California | 72 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 4 | Texas | 52 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 5 | Arizona | 41 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 6 | Illinois | 37 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 7 | New York | 29 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 8 | Washington | 22 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 9 | New Jersey | 20 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
| 10 | Georgia | 19 | OpenStreetMap coverage |
Why a marker cannot reveal grid impact
A facility marker alone does not provide utility service territory, contracted demand, power usage effectiveness, backup generation, hourly load, expansion stage, or transmission constraints. Even a reported megawatt value may represent a future campus plan rather than current consumption.
A responsible analysis combines utility filings, planning documents, interconnection records, regional demand, and the date and confidence of each claim.
Questions the map can answer
- Which power plants and transmission lines are near a reported facility?
- What generation technologies are present in the surrounding area?
- Which regional grid signal is relevant to the broader location?
- Where should a researcher look for utility and planning records next?