Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electrcity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Yeah, I apparently messed up the RFC posting, but I'll write a little 
explainer there tomorrow morning. I wanted to leave the comments, but 
not make it appear as if voting were still active.


On 31/10/2020 00:37, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 08:42, Steve Doerr > wrote:


On 29/10/2020 16:50, Lukas Richert wrote:
> as I've received no further comments to the proposal and all points
> brought up should be resolved,
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity is
> open for voting now.
>

I see some evidence of voting, but it's in a section entitled
'Comments
from voting 29-30 October'. Is there really only two days of
voting on
this application, and are votes considered 'Comments on voting'? It
seems a bit misleading to me. Also, aren't there usually some
instructions on how to vote? I find it a bit strange that people are
actually replying to other people's votes - is that normal?


Lukas moved it back from Voting to Proposed, so voting is 
paused/stopped, after more RFC time has passed it might open back up 
for voting.


I think it's fine to comment on other people's votes, usually to raise 
a point or concern about their reasoning or justification. If I vote 
no and give my reasons, but someone sees a flaw or mistake in my 
reasons I'd like them to comment back to me so I'm aware of that and 
can re-assess my voting position.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electrcity=*

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 08:42, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> On 29/10/2020 16:50, Lukas Richert wrote:
> > as I've received no further comments to the proposal and all points
> > brought up should be resolved,
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity is
> > open for voting now.
> >
>
> I see some evidence of voting, but it's in a section entitled 'Comments
> from voting 29-30 October'. Is there really only two days of voting on
> this application, and are votes considered 'Comments on voting'? It
> seems a bit misleading to me. Also, aren't there usually some
> instructions on how to vote? I find it a bit strange that people are
> actually replying to other people's votes - is that normal?
>

Lukas moved it back from Voting to Proposed, so voting is paused/stopped,
after more RFC time has passed it might open back up for voting.

I think it's fine to comment on other people's votes, usually to raise a
point or concern about their reasoning or justification. If I vote no and
give my reasons, but someone sees a flaw or mistake in my reasons I'd like
them to comment back to me so I'm aware of that and can re-assess my voting
position.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electrcity=*

[Steve Doerr]

On 29/10/2020 16:50, Lukas Richert wrote:
as I've received no further comments to the proposal and all points 
brought up should be resolved, 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity is 
open for voting now.




I see some evidence of voting, but it's in a section entitled 'Comments 
from voting 29-30 October'. Is there really only two days of voting on 
this application, and are votes considered 'Comments on voting'? It 
seems a bit misleading to me. Also, aren't there usually some 
instructions on how to vote? I find it a bit strange that people are 
actually replying to other people's votes - is that normal?


--

Steve



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

[Clare Corthell via Tagging]

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for the input and feedback thus far, any outstanding commentary
is welcome. Amendments to the proposal include a definition of rideshare,
example companies, and comment responses on the Discussion page. In-line
comments here.

Anyone who would like to comment or bring up outstanding questions, please
do so for another week. At the end of next week, this proposal could move
to voting.

Best,
Clare

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:41 AM nathan case  wrote:

> Clare: this is a good discussion to have.
>
>
>
> It seems as though the emergence of rideshare services is still being
> addressed at various legal levels but, at least in the UK, rideshare
> vehicles are not classed taxis and so are not ordinarily entitled to use
> bus/taxi lanes. If situations exist where rideshares are specifically
> allowed (or not), and that access is distinct from taxi or a regular
> motor_vehicle, then a key should exist to denote that. I note that the
> proposal has been updated to reflect such cases.
>
>
>
> > Joseph Eisenberg: But you will also need to add a definition of a
> "rideshare vehicle", since this will need to be translated for places where
> Lyft and Uber do not operate, and where English is not used (e.g.
> Indonesia). Unfortunately I don't see a good online source for a definition.
>
>
>
> Perhaps such definitions are dependent upon local/national legislation. In
> your follow on examples, do those services enjoy the same access rights as
> PSVs? If yes, then perhaps they should simply be covered by that tag? If
> they do not, do they have any additional or fewer access rights than simply
> motor_vehicle/cycle? If not, then perhaps they should simply be covered by
> those respective tags?
>

The legal designation could derive from venue/airport, local, county,
state, or federal law. Just as u-turns are always technically legal in
California unless prohibited, while in Washington they are prohibited
unless permitted, there are local laws that are required to fully
contextualize map data but are not represented within it. I don't foresee
rideshare being default prohibited, so perhaps the example is too extreme,
but nevertheless the goal is to encode the specific implications of local
law for a given rideshare vehicle rather than law generally.


>
>
> So a definition could be something along the lines of: “A private hire
> vehicle, often booked through an online service or a mobile application,
> that does not enjoy the same legal standing as a taxi service. Exact
> definition may depend on local law but usually denotes services such as
> Uber and Lyft.”
>
>
>
> A taxi that also takes bookings/collects fares via an app is still a taxi,
> in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joseph Eisenberg 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:32 AM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access
>
>
>
> Clare,
>
>
>
> The "proposal" section currently fails to include the actual proposal:
> that is, what new key and tags are you proposing to use?
>
>
>
> It looks like the proposal is: "approve the use of the new key
> "rideshare=" with values "yes" and "no" to specify legal access for
> rideshare vehicles."
>
For the possible values, the expectation is that these include typical
values

for other vehicle access, such as {yes, no, designated, local,
destination}. We typically encounter cases where the first two values are
useful, as noted in the proposal. Cases of "designated" or "destination"
access for rideshare vehicles are both plausible and possible. Possible
keys are indicated in the existing Access page.


> But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare vehicle", since
> this will need to be translated for places where Lyft and Uber do not
> operate, and where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia). Unfortunately I
> don't see a good online source for a definition.
>
>
>
> Is a Gojek motorcycle a rideshare vehicle? See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojek
>
> What about pedicabs (tricycles) which are hailed with a smartphone app?
>
> Or should only passenger cars be included?
>
> What about taxis which also get fares via an app?
>
>
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM Clare Corthell via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tagging List,
>
>
>
> Here is the RFC for the proposal for rideshare vehicle access:
>
>
>
> Proposal:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
>
> Discussion:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
>
>
>
>
> This proposes the addition of rideshare as a use-based access mode for
> land-based transportation. This would enable mapping restriction or
> permission of rideshare vehicles to nodes and ways. As mentioned in the
> proposal example cases
> 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Jan Michel]

Hi,

I don't see a need to introduce new 'electricity:XY' keys.
The current definition of 'electricity' is to mark how an
amenity or building is supplied with energy. There is no intention
to have this key mark things like access for other people to this
energy source.
Access to electricity is tagged using 'power_supply' - and all your 
ideas would fit perfectly into the already existing

'power_supply' key. It seems to be the ideal occassion to revisit
this tag and bring it to a good shape.

Here's what I would do:

- There is no formal proposal for power_supply yet, so we should write one

- The option to have socket types as values is listed in the Wiki, but 
hardly ever used (93% of uses are plain yes/no), so this should be 
dropped as its mixing different things into one tag.


- Propose the new subtags according to your ideas, i.e.
power_supply -> adjust values to be yes/no/grid/generator ...
power_supply:socket -> values and meaning as in Key:socket
	power_supply:source -> values and meaning as described for power:source 
and generator:source

power_supply:fee -> already in use!
power_supply:access -> like in common tags like toilets:access


Jan 


On 30.10.20 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote:
Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll 
go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by 
subject title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually 
visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source 



The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that 
have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags 
such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the 
availability to the public and the question of financial or direct 
origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.



I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
---

Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply 
 and socket 
 keys describe the same 
feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner 
that electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for 
power_supply is relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is 
better thought out and also currently more used. I would be in favor of 
deprecating power_supply and separating the two meanings it currently 
has into electricity=* and socket:*=#.


Regards,

Lukas


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Volker Schmidt]

I am confused on what the tag electricity= is intended for.

You say in the first of the two proposals:
" The parent key electricity
 would be used to tag
the availabilty and source of electricity, i.e. whether a building or
amenity has electricity. The availability of this electricity to the
public, either for free or for a fee, would be determined by the typical
access  and fee
 tags."

So let's go to the practical side:
My home is an average single family house in an average city in an average
country in Europe.
As for 99.9% of the buildings in this country it is connected to the
(national) electricity grid, hence electricity=grid.
But I do not sell electricity to the public, and I do not offer a free
electricity supply to the public, hence it would be
electricity:access=private
So we will start a major campaign to add the two tags to 99.9% of the
buildings in my country? This cannot be done automatically, as there are
the odd (for the time being) buildings that are autonomous with, for
example, solar + battery.and other odd arrangements.

I am sure that you have thought of that and the intention is to put the
electricity= tag only on some categories of buildings in those areas of the
world where it is normal to be connected to the grid, but which?

Going on from there, what about other services like drinking water, sewage,
surface water drainage, television antennas, Internet connection, postal
delivery services, garbage collection, and so on?

I have to confess, I only have questions, but no answers.

Volker



On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 13:47, Lukas Richert  wrote:

> Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll go
> back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by subject
> title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually visible. )
>
>
> --
>
> The original message:
>
> Hello all,
>
> after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my
> original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name to
> 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. Furthermore, I
> would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 'electricity' as
> this previously conflicted with parts of the electricity:source proposal
> and was not consistent.
>
> Both proposal pages:
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity
>
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source
>
> The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that
> have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags
> such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the
> availability to the public and the question of financial or direct origin
> of the electricity.
>
> This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to
> describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for that
> tag are still currently under discussion.
>
> I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the
> facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution of
> electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of electricity.
>
>
> I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
>
> ---
>
> Also, perhaps relevant: both the  power_supply
>  and socket
>   keys describe the same
> feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner that
> electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for power_supply is
> relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is better thought out and
> also currently more used. I would be in favor of deprecating power_supply
> and separating the two meanings it currently has into electricity=* and
> socket:*=#.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lukas
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

[Lukas Richert]

Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll 
go back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by 
subject title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually 
visible. )


--

The original message:

Hello all,

after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my 
original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name 
to 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. 
Furthermore, I would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 
'electricity' as this previously conflicted with parts of the 
electricity:source proposal and was not consistent.


Both proposal pages:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source 



The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that 
have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags 
such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the 
availability to the public and the question of financial or direct 
origin of the electricity.


This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to 
describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for 
that tag are still currently under discussion.


I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the 
facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution 
of electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of 
electricity.



I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals!
---

Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply 
 and socket 
 keys describe the same 
feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner 
that electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for 
power_supply is relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is 
better thought out and also currently more used. I would be in favor of 
deprecating power_supply and separating the two meanings it currently 
has into electricity=* and socket:*=#.


Regards,

Lukas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging