Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月13日週三 12:24，Mark Wagner  寫道：

> On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800
> Phake Nick  wrote:
>
> > Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi
> > and motorcycle taxi.
>
> Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact that a
> motorcycle taxi uses a motorcycle to carry the passengers?
>
> For example, in the United States, we've got what are called "airport
> shuttles".  These look and act a lot like a taxi, but either the start
> point or the end point of the journey must be the airport -- you can't
> use them as general point-to-point transportation like you could a taxi
>

It can be explained, but not necessarily intuitively so. Like you can
attribute the fare different and access restriction to them using
motorcycle vehicles, but these are not properties of a motorcycle itself.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800
Phake Nick  wrote:

> Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi
> and motorcycle taxi.

Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact that a
motorcycle taxi uses a motorcycle to carry the passengers?

For example, in the United States, we've got what are called "airport
shuttles".  These look and act a lot like a taxi, but either the start
point or the end point of the journey must be the airport -- you can't
use them as general point-to-point transportation like you could a taxi.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 12. Mai 2020 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

>
> Bottom line: more we look into this taxi business more interesting and
> confusing it gets.
>


IMHO it is not very confusing. There are taxis, and there are various other
kind of individual and mass transportation and leisure rides that are not.
There are also car hire with driver, you can find them for example in
Germany (Minicar) and Italy (NCC), and they are not (typically considered
nor legally) taxis, although they are often operating the exact same kind
of cars (brand, size, etc.). Clearly, a vaporetto stop in Venice has few in
common with taxi ranks?

I agree there can be edge cases, e.g. "illegal" taxis, which aren't legally
taxis, but are waiting in front of some places like the main station, of
some cities, and are abusively offering taxi services. Are the queueing
rows of these "taxi ranks" (informally)? E.g. in Naples at the main station
you can find them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Volker Schmidt]

In this context:
I have just realised that at Venice Aiport there are  (at least) the
following services and corresponding counters and stop positions.

busses to various destinations. They depart from a bus-stop area, but have
different counters according to the bus company
water busses (separate counter, I believe)
taxi (cabs) (you just go and pick them up)
shuttle minibuses (operated by a taxi company with Internet and phone
booking - I am not aware of a counter in the airport)
water taxies

And I am sure there are more services.

Add to add to the confusion on the water: looking for a tag for water taxi,
I consulted the EN Wikipedia article for "water taxi", and I find the
English term "water taxi" includes what I would call water busses, but in
Venice that is certainly wrong - they are completely different transport
methods: motoscafo are water taxicabs on wayter  and vaporetto are
scheduled buses on water.
Another thing that EN Wikipedia tells me is that taxi=taxicab in English.

Luckily enough there are no gondolas venturing out to the Airport, they are
a kind of human-powered taxis on water (or at least they once had that
function).

Bottom line: more we look into this taxi business more interesting and
confusing it gets.





On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 15:10, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 14:01, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when
>> they have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced
>> maps, they will be more cautious, I agree.
>>
>
> Or, after they have had an unpleasant experience, they will stop using
> crowd-
> sourced maps.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi and
motorcycle taxi.

在 2020年5月11日週一 16:04，Marc M.  寫道：

> Hello,
>
> Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> > airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would
> > that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>
> Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in a 4-seater car when you have
> a family of 8, it's the same problem, isn't it?
> When I order a taxi, they ask me the number of people.
> the guy won't come with a fiat 500 if I say 8
>
> I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
> that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
> with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
> luggage capacity.
> on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 14:01, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when
> they have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced
> maps, they will be more cautious, I agree.
>

Or, after they have had an unpleasant experience, they will stop using
crowd-
sourced maps.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2020, at 02:37, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
> In short, is this tag "tagging for the tourist"? Those in the know
> will know to check if it's a motorcycle taxi or a car taxi stand.


if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when they 
have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced maps, they 
will be more cautious, I agree.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:25, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me 
> for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite 
> disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the 
> other side of the airport to get a cab at the real taxi stand.
>
> This is not a problem in your country, because you only have taxicab stands. 
> It will not affect you personally, unless you travel to Asia or Africa etc.

In short, is this tag "tagging for the tourist"? Those in the know
will know to check if it's a motorcycle taxi or a car taxi stand.

Or is it "tagging for Maps.me", which might not be adapted to
differently render amenity=taxi + taxi=motorcycle_taxi on short
notice? Luckily they do change rendering for some subtags:
amenity=parking + access=private; or railway=station + wheelchair=*.

(And what about water taxis at Malé airport?)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mikko Tamura]

This seems very logical. This is very evident jn Thailand also. Its like
every 2 blocks in Bangkok there is a motorcycle taxi stand.

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:26 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You guys, we are not talking about mapping a taxi call centre, where you
> use a phone number to order a cab. We are talking about mapping a taxicab
> queue or stand: a spot where taxis wait for passengers.
>
> Of course if you have 8 people in your part, and walk up to a taxicab
> stand, they might tell you that you need 2 cars (though in many some
> countries they will let you pile in to one car with your luggage strapped
> to the roof.. ). But you will be able to get a cab.
>
> If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on
> Maps.me for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite
> disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the
> other side of the airport to get a cab at the real taxi stand.
>
> This is not a problem in your country, because you only have taxicab
> stands. It will not affect you personally, unless you travel to Asia or
> Africa etc.
>
> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:04 AM Marc M.  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
>> > airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would
>> > that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>>
>> Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in a 4-seater car when you have
>> a family of 8, it's the same problem, isn't it?
>> When I order a taxi, they ask me the number of people.
>> the guy won't come with a fiat 500 if I say 8
>>
>> I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
>> that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
>> with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
>> luggage capacity.
>> on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 


*MIKKO L. TAMURA*
*Administrator*
*Map Beks Initiative*

*Externals Head*
*Pilipinas Chubs X Chasers*

*Volunteer Mapper*
*OpenStreetMap Philippines*
*Contact Number: +639052320416*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Joseph Eisenberg]

You guys, we are not talking about mapping a taxi call centre, where you
use a phone number to order a cab. We are talking about mapping a taxicab
queue or stand: a spot where taxis wait for passengers.

Of course if you have 8 people in your part, and walk up to a taxicab
stand, they might tell you that you need 2 cars (though in many some
countries they will let you pile in to one car with your luggage strapped
to the roof.. ). But you will be able to get a cab.

If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me
for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite
disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the
other side of the airport to get a cab at the real taxi stand.

This is not a problem in your country, because you only have taxicab
stands. It will not affect you personally, unless you travel to Asia or
Africa etc.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:04 AM Marc M.  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> > airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would
> > that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>
> Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in a 4-seater car when you have
> a family of 8, it's the same problem, isn't it?
> When I order a taxi, they ask me the number of people.
> the guy won't come with a fiat 500 if I say 8
>
> I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
> that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
> with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
> luggage capacity.
> on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 11, 2020, 13:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski <>>> ja...@piorkowski.ca>>> > 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
 public parking then you also need to know to check for
 access!=private.

>>>
>>>
>>> this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking with 
>>> amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as 
>>> amenity=shower or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water. 
>>>
>> Not really. Private parking are worth mapping - it is stiil useful for 
>> orientation, data analysis, 
>> QA (private parkings vs unmapped) etc
>>
>
>
> right, but this doesn't mean it must have the same main tag, in particular 
> "amenity" as key. For example we do not map private post boxes (your incoming 
> mail) the same as those from the postal service for outgoing mail, although 
> in the beginning there have been proponents to use amenity=post_box, 
> access=private ;-)
>
This is problematic because it makes impossible to map parking from aerial 
images.
You would need three top level tags - for unknown access status, known as 
accessible,
and known to be private.

>> Tagging private showers, kitchens and toilets is unacceptable and should be 
>> deleted if spotted.
>>
>>
>
>
> can you point to the rule? What would not be acceptable is tagging them like 
> the amenities.
>
I would delete it (and deleted in past) as a blatant privacy violation.

There is attempt to define it more explicitly at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
>
> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
> public parking then you also need to know to check for
> access!=private.
>
>
>
> this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking
> with amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as
> amenity=shower or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water.
>
> Not really. Private parking are worth mapping - it is stiil useful for
> orientation, data analysis,
> QA (private parkings vs unmapped) etc
>


right, but this doesn't mean it must have the same main tag, in particular
"amenity" as key. For example we do not map private post boxes (your
incoming mail) the same as those from the postal service for outgoing mail,
although in the beginning there have been proponents to use
amenity=post_box, access=private ;-)





>
> Tagging private showers, kitchens and toilets is unacceptable and should
> be deleted if spotted.
>
>

can you point to the rule? What would not be acceptable is tagging them
like the amenities.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 11, 2020, 10:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>>
>> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
>> public parking then you also need to know to check for
>> access!=private.
>>
>
>
> this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking with 
> amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as 
> amenity=shower or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water. 
>
Not really. Private parking are worth mapping - it is stiil useful for 
orientation, data analysis, 
QA (private parkings vs unmapped) etc

Tagging private showers, kitchens and toilets is unacceptable and should be 
deleted if spotted.

(note that some amenity=toilets + access=private should be retagged to 
access=customers
rather than deleted)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2020, at 10:04, Marc M.  wrote:
> 
> I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
> that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
> with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
> luggage capacity.
> on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants.


can you show the traffic sign for motorcycle taxi waiting areas?
IMHO “normal” cars are for up to 8 passengers, if there are more seats it is a 
bus, different sign, different rules, not a taxi.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
> public parking then you also need to know to check for
> access!=private.


this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking with 
amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as amenity=shower 
or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water. 
Or tagging amenity=drinking_water with drinking_water=no (IIRR, someone once 
proposed this combination for water taps that do not provide drinking water). 
These should all be avoided, and just because it became established for 
parkings (where there are also edge cases like customer parking), does not 
imply we should do it for more tags.


> If you're doing an analysis of mobility options then
> you need to know to check for wheelchair tag, etc.



different case. This is an example how it should work: a shop remains a shop, a 
pub a pub and a sidewalk a sidewalk, regardless of the wheelchair tag. This tag 
doesn’t make a pub a fast food or a fine dining restaurant.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Marc M.]

Hello,

Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would
> that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?

Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in a 4-seater car when you have
a family of 8, it's the same problem, isn't it?
When I order a taxi, they ask me the number of people.
the guy won't come with a fiat 500 if I say 8

I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
luggage capacity.
on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants.

Regards,
Marc

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月11日週一 09:18，Jarek Piórkowski  寫道：

> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick  wrote:
> > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or
> districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things
> to be managed.
>
> If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know
> you have to check which is which. Which tag is used to check for them
> is immaterial.
>


Yes, but it would be impossible to check if the motorcycle tag become
optional, aka when motorcycle become another value chained to the taxi tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick  wrote:
> I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts 
> where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be 
> managed.

If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know
you have to check which is which. Which tag is used to check for them
is immaterial.

Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
public parking then you also need to know to check for
access!=private. If you're doing an analysis of mobility options then
you need to know to check for wheelchair tag, etc.

The only advantage of a separate top-level amenity=motorcycle_taxi tag
is that it won't show up for people who don't know the difference. But
if they don't know the difference, they're likely in an area where
motorcycle taxis don't exist.

This is going around in circles. I hope whoever wanted more discussion
before voting is satisfied ;)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

* Also, as have already been mentioned in other replies, there are various
other differences between the two services other than number of wheels and
whether they're enclosed.

在 2020年5月11日週一 09:04，Phake Nick  寫道：

> I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or
> districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things
> to be managed.
> Even if you view it from the viewpoint of people trying to get a ride, I
> would not expect cross-display of the two types of mobility items in the
> same format as that would lose the meaning of having the two types of
> mobility options.
>
> 在 2020年5月11日週一 08:58，Jarek Piórkowski  寫道：
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick  wrote:
>> > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi
>> themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle
>> taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of
>> another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data
>> when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes.
>>
>> Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely.
>>
>> If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be
>> wrong.
>>
>> If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track
>> vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're
>> asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of
>> local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more
>> specific question.
>>
>> You could make a similar argument for other amenities.
>> For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region
>> some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when
>> doing the analysis.
>> If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a
>> wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need
>> to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur
>> to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should
>> we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to
>> prevent incorrect analysis?
>>
>> To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an
>> amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an
>> enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of
>> luggage.
>>
>> --Jarek
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or
districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things
to be managed.
Even if you view it from the viewpoint of people trying to get a ride, I
would not expect cross-display of the two types of mobility items in the
same format as that would lose the meaning of having the two types of
mobility options.

在 2020年5月11日週一 08:58，Jarek Piórkowski  寫道：

> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick  wrote:
> > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi
> themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle
> taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of
> another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data
> when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes.
>
> Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely.
>
> If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be wrong.
>
> If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track
> vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're
> asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of
> local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more
> specific question.
>
> You could make a similar argument for other amenities.
> For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region
> some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when
> doing the analysis.
> If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a
> wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need
> to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur
> to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should
> we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to
> prevent incorrect analysis?
>
> To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an
> amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an
> enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of
> luggage.
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick  wrote:
> At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves. 
> What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What 
> matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would 
> not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data when someone use 
> those data, and the answer seems to me as yes.

Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely.

If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be wrong.

If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track
vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're
asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of
local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more
specific question.

You could make a similar argument for other amenities.
For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region
some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when
doing the analysis.
If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a
wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need
to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur
to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should
we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to
prevent incorrect analysis?

To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an
amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an
enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of
luggage.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi
themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle
taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of
another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data
when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes.

在 2020年5月11日週一 05:55，Florimond Berthoux  寫道：

> Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> a écrit :
>
>> On 9. May 2020, at 22:50, Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that's the point...
>>
>> Keep it simple.
>> You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute
>> without checking yet another wiki tag page.
>>
>> By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris
>>
>> https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
>> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that
>> be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>>
>
> I don't care, English is not my mother tongue and tags is not the English
> language :
> «Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end
> its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for
> mapping and computing.»
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer  a
écrit :

> On 9. May 2020, at 22:50, Florimond Berthoux 
> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's the point...
>
> Keep it simple.
> You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute
> without checking yet another wiki tag page.
>
> By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris
>
> https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg
>
>
>
> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that
> be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>

I don't care, English is not my mother tongue and tags is not the English
language :
«Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end its
just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for mapping
and computing.»

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2020, at 17:24, Yves  wrote:
> 
> Also, it's not like taxis are a must have for renderers, there will be no 
> drama if a map shows a taxi station inaccurately for a few months


all maps actually ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Yves]

And a tag refinement with a sub tag would work if the decision to tag as such 
is advertised : renderers will follow, editor softwares too.
A successful vote may help, opening issues at major editors and renderers once 
settled will certainly.
Also, it's not like taxis are a must have for renderers, there will be no drama 
if a map shows a taxi station inaccurately for a few months.
Yves 

Le 10 mai 2020 16:08:27 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer  
a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 10. May 2020, at 14:43, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers don't
>support
>> it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't
>rendered or ojeks
>> are rendered as taxis.
>
>
>ojeks getting rendered as cab taxis would work if it would not matter
>whether it’s an ojek or an automobile, if someone looking at the map
>and going to an ojek when expecting a taxi would be equally fine with
>finding an ojek at her arrival.
>
>Cheers Martin 
>___
>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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2020, at 14:43, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers don't support
> it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't rendered or 
> ojeks
> are rendered as taxis.


ojeks getting rendered as cab taxis would work if it would not matter whether 
it’s an ojek or an automobile, if someone looking at the map and going to an 
ojek when expecting a taxi would be equally fine with finding an ojek at her 
arrival.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 13:34, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 10. May 2020, at 14:24, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Technically, either approach to
> > tagging would work
>
>
> I would question this. It would work if all data consumers would evaluate
> the subtag, i.e. add support for it and it would mean we would require two
> tags for taxis: amenity=taxi and a tag that says it is automobiles.
>
> It's as broad as it is long.  Either way requires editors to know about
it.  Either way
requires renderers to know about it.  With the sub-tag approach the default
would
be car.  Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers
don't support
it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't rendered or
ojeks
are rendered as taxis.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2020, at 14:24, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Technically, either approach to
> tagging would work


I would question this. It would work if all data consumers would evaluate the 
subtag, i.e. add support for it and it would mean we would require two tags for 
taxis: amenity=taxi and a tag that says it is automobiles.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月10日週日 16:24，Martin Koppenhoefer  寫道：

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you
> > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek
> ranks
> > incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they
> decide they're
> > going to ignore the vehicle tag)
>
>
> it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being
> taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle
> anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi
> this is the wrong approach anyway).
>
> In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a
> kind of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see
> them as their own kind of service.
>

I saw one mapper who shared their view on why motorcycle taxi should be a
type of taxi, unfortunately I cannot see the rationale within the
explanation given by the editor. I think it would be helpful of the
proposal can be modofied and RFC be restarted so that hopefully other
editors who held similar views can provide a more easy to understand
explanation on why they think so.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 09:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you
> > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek
> ranks
> > incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they
> decide they're
> > going to ignore the vehicle tag)
>
> it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being
> taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle
> anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi
> this is the wrong approach anyway).
>

I could be wrong, but I got the impression that even those who were arguing
that ojeks were a variety of taxi expected them to be rendered differently.
If not, why bother sub-tagging them?

>
> In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a
> kind of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see
> them as their own kind of service.
>

 It doesn't just seem that way, that's how it is.  Technically, either
approach to
tagging would work.  One question is which way results in the fewest number
of
mappers (and end users using the query tool) being surprised at the way the
object is tagged/  The other question is which one gives the least
undesirable
results on renderers that support "ordinary" taxis but not the motorcycle
ones.

I think the best we can hope for from all this is that the OP mulls over
all the
arguments, does whatever seems best to him and also documents it in
the wiki.

As a side-issue, I'm not too worried if these discussions don't end up with
a formal proposal but merely inform somebody's decision about "any tag
you like."  What does worry me is that these things then go undocumented
and get used inconsistently.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you
> guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek ranks
> incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they decide 
> they're
> going to ignore the vehicle tag)


it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being 
taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle 
anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi this is 
the wrong approach anyway).

In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a kind 
of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see them as 
their own kind of service.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月10日週日 07:08，François Lacombe  寫道：

>
> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 19:20, Phake Nick  a écrit :
>
>>
>> What you said doesn't make sense.
>> The existence of a space within the word doesn't inherently make them
>> separateable.
>> Like for the tag amenity=charging_station, do you think the space mean ot
>> make sense to change the tagging scheme into amenity=station +
>> station=charging ?
>>
>
> It depends on what your definition of station is.
>

As you said, it depends, you can't just break down everything this way just
because they're compounded word.

>
>
>>
>> Your interpretation on public transit service is incorrect.
>> When you board a plane from London to Paris, you didn't fly to Paris
>> because they told us they would fly to Paris. You're going to Paris because
>> you have expressed interest in going to Paris. Same with rideshareing or
>> other rented mobility services.
>>
>
> You're lucky enough to take on planes you define your own destination
> first.
> "Going to Paris" doesn't mean the same for a taxicab and for a plane.
> Even in ridesharing, destination is given by passengers and driver doesn't
> know it before meeting them (face to face or with an app, same actually).
> You don't define the destination reached by plane, by train or by bus.
> This is the difference I make.
>

You can book a flight ticket through travel agents, ticketing websites,
carrier hotline, or airport counter. You don't need luck to get a flight to
Paris.


>
>>
>>
>>> We agree on that particular point.
>>> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
>>> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
>>> relevant.
>>>
>>
>> I am not aware of such requirement on value ever existing in OSM.
>>
>
> This was actual irony.
>

I hope you realize the irony here is that you pulled some rule out of thin
air that didn't exists in OSM.


> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 20:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Both have taxi service in common but the vehicle is different (and implies
> really different experiences indeed)
> amenity=* represents the taxi service and I find relevant to describe the
> different vehicle in another key.
>

As have already been explained they are different types of services


>
>> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
>> relevant.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> If you accept to merge similarities and differences in values you don't
> need different keys.
> Who need operator key for instance?
> amenity=taxi_with_cars_operated_by_Acompany
> amenity=taxi_with_motorbikes_operated_by_anotherCompany
> Hey it's way different things, Acompany is really bad compared to
> anotherCompany.
>

That's a ridiculous comparison, that's like saying we shouldn't have
different tag for office building versus residential building because
people night expand it to make tags like microsoft_office_building.


> Finally, Paul, I find your point about taxonomy thinking interesting and
> will try to develop it a bit in future.
> Get me well, I don't intend to ban anyone from anything.
> Query tools are really important to consume data and my point wasn't to
> downgrade tagging readability in general (nor to encourage K9842=V2179).
> To me tourists and query tools users can only be the same persons at
> different time. I've never used overpass to locate myself in any train
> station, that's all.
>
> In proposal, arguing amenity=taxi/amenity=motorbike_taxi will better
> prevent errors than amenity=taxi + vehicle=* doesn't convince me : mappers
> are always able to confuse two services, whatever the tagging they use can
> be.
>
> That was my 2 cts, good night
>

So you're saying people would be confused by a motorcycle taxi and think
they're a 4-wheeled taxi, or they might look at a 4-wheeled taxi and think
it is a motorcycle taxi?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:33, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the airport 
>> and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that be equally 
>> ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>
> It would matter a hell of a lot if one or more of use were carrying an item of
> heavy luggage.

In that case you should probably order a taxi for 3 people and heavy
luggage. What if they sent a Matiz as a taxi?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/takeshicollection/4329846559

For that matter, many sedans won't fit 3 guests with 3
airplane-checked-luggage size suitcases.

There's always amenity=baggage_taxi ;)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that
> be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
>

It would matter a hell of a lot if one or more of use were carrying an item
of
heavy luggage.  It would matter a hell of a lot if it was the monsoon
season.
It would matter a hell of a lot if we were wearing light, skimpy clothing
rather
than motorbike leathers and the driver was a bit of a nutter.

It might matter if they sent an "air taxi" at a ridiculous price.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:08, François Lacombe 
wrote:


> Finally, Paul, I find your point about taxonomy thinking interesting and
> will try to develop it a bit in future.
>

I'm starting to wonder if the taxonomy adopted is influenced by the language
of the person doing the classifying.  If people speaking one language are
more likely to see 4-wheel and 2-wheel taxis as variants than people
speaking
a different language.  If true, I have absolutely no idea how this helps
the list
reach consensus about anything. :)

Query tools are really important to consume data and my point wasn't to
> downgrade tagging readability in general (nor to encourage K9842=V2179).
>

The taxonomy adopted by the person making the query will influence how
useful that person finds the results.

To me tourists and query tools users can only be the same persons at
> different time. I've never used overpass to locate myself in any train
> station, that's all.
>

I could see myself using it in a largem strange city to find the nearest
taxi rank to
where i am.  I could see the local government of that city embedding an
overpass
query in uMap to create a map showing all taxi ranks in the city.

>
> In proposal, arguing amenity=taxi/amenity=motorbike_taxi will better
> prevent errors than amenity=taxi + vehicle=* doesn't convince me : mappers
> are always able to confuse two services, whatever the tagging they use can
> be.
>

Thinking about it, there's another factor: if various cartos will render an
ojek
rank differently from a taxi rank.  If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you
guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek ranks
incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they decide
they're
going to ignore the vehicle tag).  If you use amenity=motorbike_taxi you
guarantee that all cartos will initially not render it at all, but that
eventually
some of them will (but you have no guarantee they won't then render it
identically to amenity=taxi).

I can't decide which of those two alternatives I prefer.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. May 2020, at 22:50, Florimond Berthoux  
> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, that's the point...
> 
> Keep it simple.
> You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute 
> without checking yet another wiki tag page.
> 
> By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris
> https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg


imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the airport 
and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that be equally 
ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[François Lacombe]

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 19:20, Phake Nick  a écrit :

>
> What you said doesn't make sense.
> The existence of a space within the word doesn't inherently make them
> separateable.
> Like for the tag amenity=charging_station, do you think the space mean ot
> make sense to change the tagging scheme into amenity=station +
> station=charging ?
>

It depends on what your definition of station is.


>
> Your interpretation on public transit service is incorrect.
> When you board a plane from London to Paris, you didn't fly to Paris
> because they told us they would fly to Paris. You're going to Paris because
> you have expressed interest in going to Paris. Same with rideshareing or
> other rented mobility services.
>

You're lucky enough to take on planes you define your own destination first.
"Going to Paris" doesn't mean the same for a taxicab and for a plane.
Even in ridesharing, destination is given by passengers and driver doesn't
know it before meeting them (face to face or with an app, same actually).
You don't define the destination reached by plane, by train or by bus. This
is the difference I make.


>
>
>> We agree on that particular point.
>> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
>> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
>> relevant.
>>
>
> I am not aware of such requirement on value ever existing in OSM.
>

This was actual irony.

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 20:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

>
> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
>
> Why?
>

Both have taxi service in common but the vehicle is different (and implies
really different experiences indeed)
amenity=* represents the taxi service and I find relevant to describe the
different vehicle in another key.


> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
> relevant.
>
> Why?
>

If you accept to merge similarities and differences in values you don't
need different keys.
Who need operator key for instance?
amenity=taxi_with_cars_operated_by_Acompany
amenity=taxi_with_motorbikes_operated_by_anotherCompany
Hey it's way different things, Acompany is really bad compared to
anotherCompany.

Finally, Paul, I find your point about taxonomy thinking interesting and
will try to develop it a bit in future.
Get me well, I don't intend to ban anyone from anything.
Query tools are really important to consume data and my point wasn't to
downgrade tagging readability in general (nor to encourage K9842=V2179).
To me tourists and query tools users can only be the same persons at
different time. I've never used overpass to locate myself in any train
station, that's all.

In proposal, arguing amenity=taxi/amenity=motorbike_taxi will better
prevent errors than amenity=taxi + vehicle=* doesn't convince me : mappers
are always able to confuse two services, whatever the tagging they use can
be.

That was my 2 cts, good night

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

Key chaining is the more complex form of representation, especially when
there are no obvious relationship between different types of objects being
represented.

在 2020年5月10日週日 04:50，Florimond Berthoux  寫道：

> Yeah, that's the point...
>
> Keep it simple.
> You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute
> without checking yet another wiki tag page.
>
> By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris
>
> https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg
>
> Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 23:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
> a écrit :
>
>> The tag motorcycle=yes is already documented as defining legal access
>> restrictions for motorcycle riders, like access=yes or foot=yes
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:motorcycle%3Dyes
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:34 PM Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > 5) As a French I have to give you again the universal answer :
>> amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes + whateveryourvehicle=yes|designated :)
>> >
>> > Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end
>> its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for
>> mapping and computing.
>> >
>> > (I read some disrespectful arguments in the following mails...)
>> >
>> > Regards
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Florimond Berthoux]

Yeah, that's the point...

Keep it simple.
You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute
without checking yet another wiki tag page.

By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris
https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg

Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 23:32, Joseph Eisenberg  a
écrit :

> The tag motorcycle=yes is already documented as defining legal access
> restrictions for motorcycle riders, like access=yes or foot=yes
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:motorcycle%3Dyes
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:34 PM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 5) As a French I have to give you again the universal answer :
> amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes + whateveryourvehicle=yes|designated :)
> >
> > Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end
> its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for
> mapping and computing.
> >
> > (I read some disrespectful arguments in the following mails...)
> >
> > Regards
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 9, 2020, 14:33 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 02:29, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com> > a écrit :
>  
>
>> Motorcycle taxi is different from 4-wheeled taxi because they provide a 
>> different experience with different speed, charge different fare, have 
>> different level of convenience, can access different area, and various other 
>> factors.
>>
>
> We agree on that particular point.
> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
>
Why?

> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was relevant.
>
Why?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月9日週六 20:35，François Lacombe  寫道：

> Hi Paul,
>
> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 02:29, Paul Allen  a écrit :
>
>>
>> This isn't just about optimizing the number of tags used, it's about
>> aligning with
>> how most people's mental models work.  And not just the mental models
>> of local mappers but also the mental models of tourists: locals don't
>> refer
>> to maps as often as tourists do.
>>
>
> Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi
> service they can use.
> Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of
> Google Maps data model when browsing it?
> Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes
> tagging less important to master to contribute.
>

> Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi +
> vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex.
> Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we
> have something to do with several keys.
>

What you said doesn't make sense.
The existence of a space within the word doesn't inherently make them
separateable.
Like for the tag amenity=charging_station, do you think the space mean ot
make sense to change the tagging scheme into amenity=station +
station=charging ?



> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 06:38, Shawn K. Quinn  a
> écrit :
>
>> taxi=* is already used as an access tag, so I think taxi:type=* should
>> be considered instead. Perhaps amenity=taxi can default to motorcar if
>> there is no taxi:type=* tag.
>>
>
> Beware of :type disadvantages.
> Things like vehicle=* sounds better (or another word referring to vehicle
> used).
>
> Default to motorcar can lead to mistakes for consumers.
> It's more valuable to consider vehicle unknown if absent (and encourage
> mappers to explicitly define it)
>

And that make the tag valueless as that cannot actually indicate what exact
type of place the tag was indicating.


> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 08:01, Phake Nick  a écrit :
>
>>
>> "I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle" is something
>> that would also be true for any other public transit vehicles.
>>
>
> I respectably disagree regarding public transit: you're not asking them to
> take you where YOU want but if they actually go where THEY told us they
> will.
> Every word counts here.
>

Your interpretation on public transit service is incorrect.
When you board a plane from London to Paris, you didn't fly to Paris
because they told us they would fly to Paris. You're going to Paris because
you have expressed interest in going to Paris. Same with rideshareing or
other rented mobility services.


>
>> Motorcycle taxi is different from 4-wheeled taxi because they provide a
>> different experience with different speed, charge different fare, have
>> different level of convenience, can access different area, and various
>> other factors.
>>
>
> We agree on that particular point.
> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
> relevant.
>

I am not aware of such requirement on value ever existing in OSM.


>
>
>> In addition to them being different kind of services, for the purpose of
>> openstreetmap tagging, it's better to remember that a motorcycle taxi stand
>> would look quite different from a taxi stand, use the streetspace
>> differently, and thus mixing them together would also hurt any downstream
>> data user who might wish to understand the situation of 4-wheeled taxi
>> penetration in certain geographical area due to conflating the data with
>> others that aren't of the same type. They're often regulated by different
>> laws and face different operational restrictions also.
>>
>
> That could eventually be a point if all those differences were known
> precisely and described.
> There are many many kind of public transit stations but we're still
> calling them stations and platforms.
>

That would be a big departure from the way how these features are currently
tagged within OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 13:35, François Lacombe 
wrote:

>
> Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi
> service they can use.
>

But the query tool is there.  Or are you proposing banning tourists from
using it?
That would be possible - login required to use the query tool.  Or login
required to
use the map.  But the map is only primarily there for mappers, other uses
are
encouraged.

And before the choir sings a chorus of "standard carto is for mappers, not
users"
and "different renderers may do things differently" they're right.
Different renderers
may also expose all the gory details of raw tags without prettying them up.

Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of
> Google Maps data model when browsing it?
>

I'm aware of some of its limitations.  Otherwise I wouldn't be here. :)

Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes
> tagging less important to master to contribute.
>

A lot of things can be hidden by renderers and editor presets.  But the
query tool
is still there.  As is overpass turbo.  And there are a lot of things I
need to add as
raw tags because the editor I use most has decided that things I add
frequently
to certain types of POI aren't things that anybody wants to add.  It makes
life
easier for newbies who may not be interested in nuances but it makes life
harder
for experienced mappers who do.  It is even harder when I have to keep
looking
things up in the documentation because the tagging isn't very meaningful.

Unless there are good reasons not to for specific cases, we should strive to
make the semantics of tags meaningful.  It would be possible to have tags
like K9842=V2179 provided ALL renderer query tools, editors, overpass
turboi,
etc. did the appropriate translations.  It would be a real pain when you
needed
to add a raw tag, but it would be feasible.  But we'd never get all tools to
do the translations, so making things meaningful is necessary.  We just
can't agree on what is meaningful because we're have different mental
models.

>
> Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi +
> vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex.
>

Nope, it doesn't sound that complex.  Yet the discussion goes on and on,
because
some people dislike amenity=taxi + vehicle=* and prefer amenity=*.

Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we
> have something to do with several keys.
>

It could mean that if everyone had the same mental model you do.  We're not
all
strict taxonomists.  Or even strict taxi-ists.  As somebody else pointed
out, if
vehicles with a driver for hire are all taxis, then why do we have buses?
Very
few people class taxi and bus identically.  And even fewer put chartered
aircraft in the same class.  Many see ojeks and taxis the same way they see
buses and taxis - different things, not variants of the same thing.

In everyday life, most people don't think in a taxonomic way.  They see
instances, not classes.  Push them to categorize things and they will
agree that a chair is a type of seat, and a seat is a type of furniture, but
most of them see a chair and think "chair."  And if you do persuade
somebody to think taxonomically, the hierarchy he or she uses may or
may not be the same one you do: that chair is made of wood, as is that
table - they're both wooden. not they're both furniture.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[François Lacombe]

Hi Paul,

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 02:29, Paul Allen  a écrit :

>
> This isn't just about optimizing the number of tags used, it's about
> aligning with
> how most people's mental models work.  And not just the mental models
> of local mappers but also the mental models of tourists: locals don't refer
> to maps as often as tourists do.
>

Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi
service they can use.
Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of
Google Maps data model when browsing it?
Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes
tagging less important to master to contribute.

Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi +
vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex.
Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we
have something to do with several keys.

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 06:38, Shawn K. Quinn  a écrit :

> taxi=* is already used as an access tag, so I think taxi:type=* should
> be considered instead. Perhaps amenity=taxi can default to motorcar if
> there is no taxi:type=* tag.
>

Beware of :type disadvantages.
Things like vehicle=* sounds better (or another word referring to vehicle
used).

Default to motorcar can lead to mistakes for consumers.
It's more valuable to consider vehicle unknown if absent (and encourage
mappers to explicitly define it)

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 08:01, Phake Nick  a écrit :

>
> "I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle" is something
> that would also be true for any other public transit vehicles.
>

I respectably disagree regarding public transit: you're not asking them to
take you where YOU want but if they actually go where THEY told us they
will.
Every word counts here.


> Motorcycle taxi is different from 4-wheeled taxi because they provide a
> different experience with different speed, charge different fare, have
> different level of convenience, can access different area, and various
> other factors.
>

We agree on that particular point.
Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was relevant.



> In addition to them being different kind of services, for the purpose of
> openstreetmap tagging, it's better to remember that a motorcycle taxi stand
> would look quite different from a taxi stand, use the streetspace
> differently, and thus mixing them together would also hurt any downstream
> data user who might wish to understand the situation of 4-wheeled taxi
> penetration in certain geographical area due to conflating the data with
> others that aren't of the same type. They're often regulated by different
> laws and face different operational restrictions also.
>

That could eventually be a point if all those differences were known
precisely and described.
There are many many kind of public transit stations but we're still calling
them stations and platforms.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月9日週六 07:07，François Lacombe  寫道：

> Hi
>
> Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 20:48, Phake Nick  a écrit :
>
>> motorcycle are not the same type of service as regular taxi.
>>
>
> Then may I ask you why ?
> I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle.
>


"I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle" is something
that would also be true for any other public transit vehicles.
Motorcycle taxi is different from 4-wheeled taxi because they provide a
different experience with different speed, charge different fare, have
different level of convenience, can access different area, and various
other factors.


>
>> The reaso  why you get the feeling of people saying "you don't
>> understand" to you is because you couldn't tell others why your concern is
>> legitimate, thus making it read like nonsense, even if they might make
>> sense to you, thought I am still not sure about how the distinction of
>> electric power or not is going to on the same level as different types of
>> services.
>>
>
> There is a lack of understanding in both sides here because I don't get
> why having two different amenity values is a benefit.
>

That's why I suggest clarifying the proposal and restart the discussion
process so that RFC can be centered around such idea. Or we are actually
doing it now.

>
> Back in 2009 a wiki contributor explained he's using amenity=taxi +
> motorcycle=yes. Despite motorcycle=yes can be awkward as it is used as an
> access tag, the idea to complete taxi service with explicit vehicle
> definition is useful.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi#Motorcycles.3F
> As I assume motorcycle taxi service is the same as taxicab service (change
> my mind upside), I find convenient to only define extra vehicule types
> instead of the whole service we already have in amenity=taxi.
>

In addition to them being different kind of services, for the purpose of
openstreetmap tagging, it's better to remember that a motorcycle taxi stand
would look quite different from a taxi stand, use the streetspace
differently, and thus mixing them together would also hurt any downstream
data user who might wish to understand the situation of 4-wheeled taxi
penetration in certain geographical area due to conflating the data with
others that aren't of the same type. They're often regulated by different
laws and face different operational restrictions also.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 5/7/20 1:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> So, what's the next step? 
> 
> 1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get
> that idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail),
> or is that a waste of everyone's time?

taxi=* is already used as an access tag, so I think taxi:type=* should
be considered instead. Perhaps amenity=taxi can default to motorcar if
there is no taxi:type=* tag.

In theory we could even have taxi:type=tuktuk or similar if it's that
important to differentiate it from other types of motorized transport.

> 3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian
> community, like how the Japanese mapper community proposes
> locally-relevant definitions?

This might work but I'd rather not see a bunch of region-specific tags
that all mean the same thing. It's as if we had shop=vacuum in the US
and then shop=hoover in the UK (though that would run afoul of trademark
infringement, but you get where I'm coming from).

> 4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and
> recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by
> English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which
> were not invented in the West?

Most ideas of this sort are implemented worldwide, just in different ways.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 00:59, François Lacombe 
wrote:

We're not having an argument about making a difference or not between
> motorcycles or cars
>

What we're having is an argument about taxonomy.

Some people have mental models that distinguish between a taxi, an ojek and
a rickshaw, pther people see them as variants of a single concept.  They're
all
transport for hire but they have different capabilities.  If I look at a
map and see a taxi
stand, I expect some sort of four-wheel vehicle capable of carrying at
least 3
passengers and offering some degree of weather protection.  To me, an ojek
is not
a "taxi."  Even if I were visiting Indonesia where ojeks are common, if the
map
says "taxi" I think car, not motorbike.

This isn't just about optimizing the number of tags used, it's about
aligning with
how most people's mental models work.  And not just the mental models
of local mappers but also the mental models of tourists: locals don't refer
to maps as often as tourists do.

Some people see wheeled vehicles for hire as being different varieties of
taxi; some people see taxis, ojeks and rickshaws.

Some people see *Ailuropoda melanoleuca *an*d Ursus arctos* as different
members of the family Ursidae; others see then as giant pandas and brown
bears.  I'm a giant panda kind of guy.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[François Lacombe]

Hi Joseph,

Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 01:28, Joseph Eisenberg  a
écrit :

> François,
>
> Have you personally hired a motorcycle before, or is the assumption that
> this is the same service based on theory rather than experience?
>

I've hired some before lockdown, independently as cars when alone.
I've paid someone to take me somewhere with a vehicle.

The proposal gave several reasons that using amenity=taxi was not a good
> idea, including these:
>
> "Motorcyles have different abilities.
>
> "In contrast to a family or group which needs a 4 to 6 seat taxicab,
> single travelers may strongly prefer to hire motorcycles when available,
> due to their lower cost and ability to fit through smaller spaces in
> congested cities and rural areas with narrow roads and paths.
>
> "Motorcar taxicabs with 4 wheels in 2 tracks cannot access highway=path
> features and narrow roads, but motorcycles may be permitted and feasible
> due to their narrow width and single track."
>
> So a different tag is proposed to avoid confusion and more precisely tag
> these features."
>

I agree on those points and they legit the use of vehicle=motorcycle vs
vehicle=car imho.
As said, we always hire a driver to get us where we want in his vehicle,
whatever the vehicle is (chosen according to punctual needs)


> A taxi can carry 4 or more passengers, with their luggage or shopping, and
> they are enclosed, heated and perhaps air conditioned, and protected from
> weather. When you are traveling with your elderly mother-in-law and her
> luggage in a rainstor, a taxicab stand and an "ojek" queue are quite
> different amenities.
>

We're not having an argument about making a difference or not between
motorcycles or cars
We're opposing on how making this difference.
Enumerating relevant differences between both won't lead us to valuable
tagging I'm afraid.

As shown in 2009 discussion amenity=taxi definition is not as clear as we
may think now.
This proposal would have been an occasion to make it explicit and separate
concepts (service, vehicle, activity, whatever) which is IMHO more valuable
in tagging than having less tags on a single feature.

"using amenity=taxi for other vehicles than car could lead to errors"
Then add proper vehicle=* value on it, problem solved.


> However, taxis  use much more gasoline and the vehicle is more expensive
> to buy and maintain, so the price is higher than a motorcycle. Since they
> are 1.5 meters wider, they cannot fit though spaces less than 2.5 meters
> wide, which is a big disadvantage in cities in Asia with narrow streets or
> high traffic. Often only a motorcycle can get through traffic jams and
> narrow streets. In rural areas, only motorcycles are used to access many
> mountain villages, where 4-wheel-drive motorcars would be hard-pressed to
> travel.
>
> Equating these features would be like using one tag to for moving truck
> rental ("U-Haul" in the USA), motorcycle rental, bike rental, and
> kick-scooter rental.
>

Truck rental, motorcycle rental, bike rental and flying saucer rental all
have "rental" in their name.
I would use two tags respectively for rental and for the vehicle.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Joseph Eisenberg]

François,

Have you personally hired a motorcycle before, or is the assumption that
this is the same service based on theory rather than experience?

The proposal gave several reasons that using amenity=taxi was not a good
idea, including these:

"Motorcyles have different abilities.

"In contrast to a family or group which needs a 4 to 6 seat taxicab, single
travelers may strongly prefer to hire motorcycles when available, due to
their lower cost and ability to fit through smaller spaces in congested
cities and rural areas with narrow roads and paths.

"Motorcar taxicabs with 4 wheels in 2 tracks cannot access highway=path
features and narrow roads, but motorcycles may be permitted and feasible
due to their narrow width and single track."

So a different tag is proposed to avoid confusion and more precisely tag
these features."

A taxi can carry 4 or more passengers, with their luggage or shopping, and
they are enclosed, heated and perhaps air conditioned, and protected from
weather. When you are traveling with your elderly mother-in-law and her
luggage in a rainstor, a taxicab stand and an "ojek" queue are quite
different amenities.

However, taxis  use much more gasoline and the vehicle is more expensive to
buy and maintain, so the price is higher than a motorcycle. Since they are
1.5 meters wider, they cannot fit though spaces less than 2.5 meters wide,
which is a big disadvantage in cities in Asia with narrow streets or high
traffic. Often only a motorcycle can get through traffic jams and narrow
streets. In rural areas, only motorcycles are used to access many mountain
villages, where 4-wheel-drive motorcars would be hard-pressed to travel.

Equating these features would be like using one tag to for moving truck
rental ("U-Haul" in the USA), motorcycle rental, bike rental, and
kick-scooter rental.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[François Lacombe]

Hi

Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 20:48, Phake Nick  a écrit :

> motorcycle are not the same type of service as regular taxi.
>

Then may I ask you why ?
I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle.


> The reaso  why you get the feeling of people saying "you don't understand"
> to you is because you couldn't tell others why your concern is legitimate,
> thus making it read like nonsense, even if they might make sense to you,
> thought I am still not sure about how the distinction of electric power or
> not is going to on the same level as different types of services.
>

There is a lack of understanding in both sides here because I don't get why
having two different amenity values is a benefit.

Back in 2009 a wiki contributor explained he's using amenity=taxi +
motorcycle=yes. Despite motorcycle=yes can be awkward as it is used as an
access tag, the idea to complete taxi service with explicit vehicle
definition is useful.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi#Motorcycles.3F
As I assume motorcycle taxi service is the same as taxicab service (change
my mind upside), I find convenient to only define extra vehicule types
instead of the whole service we already have in amenity=taxi.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, Phake Nick  wrote:
> On 2020-05-08 Fri 20:45, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>> How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
>> oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
>> that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
>> back and forth.
>
> Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more than 
> what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the 
> discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the 
> discussion process was 1. one user who think there should be a new parents 
> tag that cover both regular taxi and motorcycle taxi, and 2. another who 
> incorrectly assuned "motorcycle taxi" is a combination of two different 
> features just because the term come with a space. That clearly indicate 
> discussion was not sufficient and that the proposal should restart the 
> discussion process.

I'm assuming you mean the following messages in the February thread?
1. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051244.html
2. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051250.html

Do you expect others who agree with already-stated positions to write
in with a copy?

More widely, it is my impression that "refining with sub-tags vs
creating new tags" has been a culture conflict in OSM since long
before I became active. (I'm just waiting for the fireworks when
someone suggests public_transport=platform + motorcycle=yes)

These objections are not new. You might not agree with them, but their
existence should not surprise you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 18:30, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> > (especially those approved after, say, 2012)
>
> The proposal process became more difficult after March 2015, when the 
> standard for approval was changed from >50% to >74%:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_process=revision=1150734=1143140
>
> This has been helpful in preventing bad ideas from being approved without 
> consensus.
>
> But it has made it more likely that a proposal will not be approved, even 
> though the majority accepts it.

Ah yes, that sounds about right. I added the classifier because I
recall some early proposals, 2008 or 2009 or so, being pretty
barebone, and wanted to separate those from the current status.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> (especially those approved after, say, 2012)

The proposal process became more difficult after March 2015, when the
standard for approval was changed from >50% to >74%:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_process=revision=1150734=1143140

This has been helpful in preventing bad ideas from being approved without
consensus.

But it has made it more likely that a proposal will not be approved, even
though the majority accepts it.

--Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq  wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski 
wrote:
> > > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> > > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> > > that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
> > > back and forth.
> >
> > If these arguments were given beforehand, perhaps the proposal could
have changed, or opinions could have been changed?
>
> Honestly - I remember following the discussion on this mailing list
> for a while and my impression was that the arguments _were_ given.
> These arguments are not a surprise. Here's a version of this exact
> argument in February:
>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051250.html
>
> Subsequent discussion here is an example of what happened. Some
> people, _after having read the rationale offered_, think that a
> separate tag is not warranted. Some people think that it is. You won't
> win an argument by telling others they're wrong.
>
> > I hardly have any experience in proposals and the voting system. But
I've seen 3 proposal so far, where I know the author doesn't want to bring
it to vote, fearing the proposal would be rejected. The rationale behind
it: status Rejected is worse than having the proposal in the "Draft" state
forever.
> >
> > And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a
rejection and start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole voting
system then? Why even bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll
just do whatever.
>
> Yeah I understand. I myself rejected Joseph's suggestion to make a tag
> I used locally and documented on wiki into a "proposal", because I
> don't want the hassle.
>
> My interpretation is that "approved" is a _lot_ higher status than "in
> use", precisely because how harsh the proposal process is. That's just
> I see it being in OSM - you can have in-use tags, locally-accepted
> tags, and then the "approved" tags are really really accepted
> (especially those approved after, say, 2012).
>
> Failing a proposal isn't a bad thing. Tag what you like. (With some
> exceptions, like straight-up vandalism or trolltags)
>
> --Jarek
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski  
> wrote:
> > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> > that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
> > back and forth.
>
> If these arguments were given beforehand, perhaps the proposal could have 
> changed, or opinions could have been changed?

Honestly - I remember following the discussion on this mailing list
for a while and my impression was that the arguments _were_ given.
These arguments are not a surprise. Here's a version of this exact
argument in February:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051250.html

Subsequent discussion here is an example of what happened. Some
people, _after having read the rationale offered_, think that a
separate tag is not warranted. Some people think that it is. You won't
win an argument by telling others they're wrong.

> I hardly have any experience in proposals and the voting system. But I've 
> seen 3 proposal so far, where I know the author doesn't want to bring it to 
> vote, fearing the proposal would be rejected. The rationale behind it: status 
> Rejected is worse than having the proposal in the "Draft" state forever.
>
> And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a rejection 
> and start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole voting system then? 
> Why even bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll just do whatever.

Yeah I understand. I myself rejected Joseph's suggestion to make a tag
I used locally and documented on wiki into a "proposal", because I
don't want the hassle.

My interpretation is that "approved" is a _lot_ higher status than "in
use", precisely because how harsh the proposal process is. That's just
I see it being in OSM - you can have in-use tags, locally-accepted
tags, and then the "approved" tags are really really accepted
(especially those approved after, say, 2012).

Failing a proposal isn't a bad thing. Tag what you like. (With some
exceptions, like straight-up vandalism or trolltags)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag motorcycle=yes is already documented as defining legal access
restrictions for motorcycle riders, like access=yes or foot=yes
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:motorcycle%3Dyes

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:34 PM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 5) As a French I have to give you again the universal answer :
amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes + whateveryourvehicle=yes|designated :)
>
> Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end
its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for
mapping and computing.
>
> (I read some disrespectful arguments in the following mails...)
>
> Regards
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

5) As a French I have to give you again the universal answer : amenity=taxi
+ motorcycle=yes + whateveryourvehicle*=yes|*designated :)

Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end its
just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for mapping
and computing.

(I read some disrespectful arguments in the following mails...)

Regards

Le jeu. 7 mai 2020 à 20:51, Joseph Eisenberg  a
écrit :

> The voting period closed for amenity=motorcycle_taxi with 11 votes to
> approve and 8 votes in opposition, therefore it is not approved, since the
> 74% majority requirement was not met.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi#Voting
>
> Opposing voters preferred using amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes or
> amenity=taxi + taxi=motorcycle
>
> Surprisingly, at least 2 opposing voters would be willing to use
> amenity=taxi + taxi=submarine or taxi=airplane for a location where you
> could hire a submarine or airplane.
>
> However, several "yes" voters were strongly opposed to expanding the
> definition of amenity=taxi which currently is limited to taxicabs
> (generally assumed to be 4-wheel motor vehicles in contemporary British
> English).
>
> So, what's the next step?
>
> 1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get
> that idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail), or
> is that a waste of everyone's time?
>
> 2) Make a proposal to clarify the definition of amenity=taxi as only
> applying to motorcars, then try to propose the tag again?
>
> 3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian
> community, like how the Japanese mapper community proposes locally-relevant
> definitions?
>
> 4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and
> recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by
> English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which were
> not invented in the West?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

That they exists doesn't mean they make a different. Taxi with low
pollution and taxi with electric power are same type of taxi as regular
taxi while motorcycle are not the same type of service as regular taxi.
That is like saying we shouldn't have a separate tag for bus versus cars
because there are many different types of cars, including electric car and
fuel efficient cars.:

The reaso  why you get the feeling of people saying "you don't understand"
to you is because you couldn't tell others why your concern is legitimate,
thus making it read like nonsense, even if they might make sense to you,
thought I am still not sure about how the distinction of electric power or
not is going to on the same level as different types of services.

在 2020年5月9日週六 01:19，Marc M.  寫道：

> apart from the joke with the foot_taxi, I used all the others, what to
> reply to someone who tells me it's not common and therefore gives the
> impression that only this usecase is important and therefore requires a
> top-level tag just for that ?
>
> that's why it gives the impression that you're saying "you didn't
> understand", without your answer explaining my argument : I'm talking
> about "the same *service*" and you reply with the number of *wheels*
>
> Le 08.05.20 à 18:17, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> > For the record, I responded to Marc Marc’s comment on this list,
> > and there was not a response back:
> >
> > “ On 2/20/20, marc marc wrote:
> >> Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> >>> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
> >>> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
> >>> define one very common, unique feature?
> >>
> >> did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination
> >> of the same service ?
> >> if yes, we need a lot of them
> >> amenity=foot_taxi
> >> amenity=moto_taxi
> >> amenity=sidecar_taxi
> >> amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution
> >> amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc.
> >> but all of these are part of the same type of service,
> >> regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force.
> >
> > Not all of these actually are in real-world use.
> >
> > The only 4 options in common use today are:
> >
> > 1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi)
> > 2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi)
> > 3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized
> > 4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclosed (could be amenity=taxi or perhaps
> > amenity=autorickshaw - but these are not common where I live, though I
> > know they are common in Thailand, India and some other countries).
> >
> > There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist.
> > They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those
> > are much more efficient.
> >
> > I will consider proposing the other 2 tags later, but motorcyle taxis
> > are by far the most common. I would bet there are more "ojek" stands
> > in Indonesia than taxi
> >  stands in all of Europe.”
> >
> >
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051233.html
> >
> > — Joseph Eisenberg
> >
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:47 AM Marc M.  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > > If these arguments were given beforehand
> >
> > except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC
> > (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion
> > of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that
> > the answer was "you didn't understand".
> >
> > I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the
> > impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake
> for
> > the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of
> > quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marc
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 8, 2020, 19:23 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:

> Le 08.05.20 à 19:06, Phake Nick a écrit :
>
>> Your argument was like saying we should use a amenity=stop tag for all
>> bus stop, taxi stop, helicopter stop, and cruise ship stop because they
>> are just "services
>>
>
> public_transport=* was invented for a service and relegate
> the mode of transport to a sub-tag.
>
Only for stop position, for bus/tram/railway stop ("platform")
simpletagging (highway=bus_stop etc) was supposed to be used
according to the approved version of a proposal.

PTv2 in the vote version is explicitly not deprecating any tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Marc M.]

Le 08.05.20 à 19:06, Phake Nick a écrit :
> Your argument was like saying we should use a amenity=stop tag for all
> bus stop, taxi stop, helicopter stop, and cruise ship stop because they
> are just "services

public_transport=* was invented for a service and relegate
the mode of transport to a sub-tag.
this is probably not the best example given the difficulty
around PT schemas but it was approved

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Marc M.]

apart from the joke with the foot_taxi, I used all the others, what to
reply to someone who tells me it's not common and therefore gives the
impression that only this usecase is important and therefore requires a
top-level tag just for that ?

that's why it gives the impression that you're saying "you didn't
understand", without your answer explaining my argument : I'm talking
about "the same *service*" and you reply with the number of *wheels*

Le 08.05.20 à 18:17, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> For the record, I responded to Marc Marc’s comment on this list, 
> and there was not a response back:
> 
> “ On 2/20/20, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>>> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
>>> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
>>> define one very common, unique feature?
>>
>> did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination
>> of the same service ?
>> if yes, we need a lot of them
>> amenity=foot_taxi
>> amenity=moto_taxi
>> amenity=sidecar_taxi
>> amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution
>> amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc.
>> but all of these are part of the same type of service,
>> regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force.
> 
> Not all of these actually are in real-world use.
> 
> The only 4 options in common use today are:
> 
> 1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi)
> 2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi)
> 3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized
> 4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclosed (could be amenity=taxi or perhaps
> amenity=autorickshaw - but these are not common where I live, though I
> know they are common in Thailand, India and some other countries).
> 
> There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist.
> They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those
> are much more efficient.
> 
> I will consider proposing the other 2 tags later, but motorcyle taxis
> are by far the most common. I would bet there are more "ojek" stands
> in Indonesia than taxi
>  stands in all of Europe.”
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051233.html
> 
> — Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:47 AM Marc M.  > wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > If these arguments were given beforehand
> 
> except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC
> (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion
> of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that
> the answer was "you didn't understand".
> 
> I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the
> impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake for
> the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of
> quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag)
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> 
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月8日週五 23:47，Marc M.  寫道：

> Hello,
>
> > If these arguments were given beforehand
>
> except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC
> (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion
> of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that
> the answer was "you didn't understand".
>
> I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the
> impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake for
> the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of
> quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag)
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Because the difference between motorcycle taxi and 4-wheeled taxi is not
propulsion? Your argument was like saying we should use a amenity=stop tag
for all bus stop, taxi stop, helicopter stop, and cruise ship stop because
they are just "services with different propulsion engine" which obviously
wasn't their main differences.

If you don't understand why they're different, you can ask, but you didn't
and just said "They are the same therefore " which obviously didn't
make sense.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Snusmumriken]

On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 09:17 -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist.
> They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those
> are much more efficient.

Not so. I've seen human-pulled rickshaws in Japan. And they probably
have an other name there. And yes it was a very touristic area, so you
could probably only get a ride inside the large park/compound area. But
they were waiting for rides at certain spots.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Joseph Eisenberg]

For the record, I responded to Marc Marc’s comment on this list, and there
was not a response back:

“ On 2/20/20, marc marc wrote:
> Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having
>> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to
>> define one very common, unique feature?
>
> did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination
> of the same service ?
> if yes, we need a lot of them
> amenity=foot_taxi
> amenity=moto_taxi
> amenity=sidecar_taxi
> amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution
> amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc.
> but all of these are part of the same type of service,
> regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force.

Not all of these actually are in real-world use.

The only 4 options in common use today are:

1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi)
2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi)
3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized
4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclosed (could be amenity=taxi or perhaps
amenity=autorickshaw - but these are not common where I live, though I
know they are common in Thailand, India and some other countries).

There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist.
They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those
are much more efficient.

I will consider proposing the other 2 tags later, but motorcyle taxis
are by far the most common. I would bet there are more "ojek" stands
in Indonesia than taxi
 stands in all of Europe.”

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051233.html

— Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:47 AM Marc M.  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > If these arguments were given beforehand
>
> except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC
> (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion
> of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that
> the answer was "you didn't understand".
>
> I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the
> impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake for
> the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of
> quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag)
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Marc M.]

Hello,

> If these arguments were given beforehand

except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC
(=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion
of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that
the answer was "you didn't understand".

I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the
impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake for
the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of
quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag)

Regards,
Marc

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/05/2020 14:04, s8evq wrote:
And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a 
rejection and start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole 
voting system then? 


Frankly, not much.


Why even bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll just do 
whatever.


"I'll just do whatever" is why OSM succeeded and other approaches 
failed.  "I'll just do whatever" allows people to just add stuff to 
their neighbourhood _right now_, which they can't if they have to 
consult a committee beforehand.*


That said, it _does_ make sense to discuss what is the best way of 
tagging a particular real-world object - and it also helps if the people 
discussing it have actually seen one of those in the real world (as was 
previously suggested, I doubt some of the "no-voters" have).


In this case clearly not all the people in favour of adding a subtag to 
"amenity=taxi" could be persuaded that it was a bad idea, but since they 
are never likely to encounter such a feature in their everyday lives 
their data is not likely to matter.  OSM should be built be people who 
are familiar with the objects that they are mapping, not people guessing 
from afar.


Best Regards,

Andy

* OSM vs (say) wikimapia isn't the only example of this - wikipedia / 
nupedia is another more famous one.  Elsewhere way back in the 1980s and 
1990s the company I was working for was telling people that a 
statistical approach to fault diagnosis was a better approach to trying 
to diagnose and fix electronic stuff than an "Expert Systems" approach - 
essentially having someone coming in and trying to design some rules 
based on a few hours "sitting with Nellie".  The statistical approach 
won out, allowing you to read this message easily in your inbox, with 
the Bayesian spamfilter having moved all the undesirable stuff into 
"junk"**.


** but not in electronics, unfortunately, as no-one repairs that any 
more - it's (currently ) cheaper to buy more stuff from 
$low_wage_economy elsewhere.




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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[s8evq]

On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq  wrote:
> >
> > Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand 
> > on the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any 
> > discussion beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible 
> > to be suddenly faced with this fait accompli.
> 
> Hm, I'm not seeing that requirement on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
> 
> In fact all the opposing votes made comments as to why they oppose it.
> You may disagree with their reasons but that doesn't make them
> invalid.

Sure. You're totally right.
 
> How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
> back and forth.

If these arguments were given beforehand, perhaps the proposal could have 
changed, or opinions could have been changed?

I hardly have any experience in proposals and the voting system. But I've seen 
3 proposal so far, where I know the author doesn't want to bring it to vote, 
fearing the proposal would be rejected. The rationale behind it: status 
Rejected is worse than having the proposal in the "Draft" state forever.

And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a rejection and 
start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole voting system then? Why even 
bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll just do whatever.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

On 2020-05-08 Fri 20:45, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

>
> How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
> oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
> that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
> back and forth.
>

Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more
than what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during
the discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the
discussion process was 1. one user who think there should be a new parents
tag that cover both regular taxi and motorcycle taxi, and 2. another who
incorrectly assuned "motorcycle taxi" is a combination of two different
features just because the term come with a space. That clearly indicate
discussion was not sufficient and that the proposal should restart the
discussion process.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq  wrote:
>
> Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on 
> the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion 
> beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be 
> suddenly faced with this fait accompli.

Hm, I'm not seeing that requirement on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting

In fact all the opposing votes made comments as to why they oppose it.
You may disagree with their reasons but that doesn't make them
invalid.

How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I
oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks
that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments
back and forth.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Marc M.]

Le 07.05.20 à 20:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Opposing voters preferred using amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes

> So, what's the next step? 

propose that :) (maybe with motorcycle=only variant if needed)
it allow to have "zone when you request to be transported by individual
transport" with several transport mode depending the local usage.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. May 2020, at 00:43, Paul Norman via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> As a next step, I'd map motorcycle taxis as amenity=motorcycle_taxi. Vote 
> with your mapping.


+1, most people who voted no supposedly never saw a motorcycle taxi in their 
life...

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

Since the wiki say,

> Rejected features may be resubmitted, modified, and moved back to the RFC
process.

, and given most reason appeared on the voting page, I would say the
correct action right now is to improve the reasons listed in the paragraph
on why alternative tagging are not available, and then enter discussion
phase again to see if such similar opinion still surface, and then head
into the voting phase again.

在 2020年5月8日週五 02:51，Joseph Eisenberg  寫道：

> The voting period closed for amenity=motorcycle_taxi with 11 votes to
> approve and 8 votes in opposition, therefore it is not approved, since the
> 74% majority requirement was not met.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi#Voting
>
> Opposing voters preferred using amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes or
> amenity=taxi + taxi=motorcycle
>
> Surprisingly, at least 2 opposing voters would be willing to use
> amenity=taxi + taxi=submarine or taxi=airplane for a location where you
> could hire a submarine or airplane.
>
> However, several "yes" voters were strongly opposed to expanding the
> definition of amenity=taxi which currently is limited to taxicabs
> (generally assumed to be 4-wheel motor vehicles in contemporary British
> English).
>
> So, what's the next step?
>
> 1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get
> that idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail), or
> is that a waste of everyone's time?
>
> 2) Make a proposal to clarify the definition of amenity=taxi as only
> applying to motorcars, then try to propose the tag again?
>
> 3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian
> community, like how the Japanese mapper community proposes locally-relevant
> definitions?
>
> 4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and
> recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by
> English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which were
> not invented in the West?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[s8evq]

Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on 
the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion 
beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be suddenly 
faced with this fait accompli. 

On Thu, 7 May 2020 11:49:43 -0700, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:

> The voting period closed for amenity=motorcycle_taxi with 11 votes to
> approve and 8 votes in opposition, therefore it is not approved, since the
> 74% majority requirement was not met.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi#Voting
> 
> Opposing voters preferred using amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes or
> amenity=taxi + taxi=motorcycle
> 
> Surprisingly, at least 2 opposing voters would be willing to use
> amenity=taxi + taxi=submarine or taxi=airplane for a location where you
> could hire a submarine or airplane.
> 
> However, several "yes" voters were strongly opposed to expanding the
> definition of amenity=taxi which currently is limited to taxicabs
> (generally assumed to be 4-wheel motor vehicles in contemporary British
> English).
> 
> So, what's the next step?
> 
> 1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get that
> idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail), or is
> that a waste of everyone's time?
> 
> 2) Make a proposal to clarify the definition of amenity=taxi as only
> applying to motorcars, then try to propose the tag again?
> 
> 3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian community,
> like how the Japanese mapper community proposes locally-relevant
> definitions?
> 
> 4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and
> recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by
> English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which were
> not invented in the West?
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Warin]

On 8/5/20 8:41 am, Paul Norman via Tagging wrote:

On 2020-05-07 11:49 a.m., Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

So, what's the next step?


As a next step, I'd map motorcycle taxis as amenity=motorcycle_taxi. 
Vote with your mapping.



+1


If those opposed don't come up with something better then they will have 
to tolerate it.





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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Norman via Tagging]

On 2020-05-07 11:49 a.m., Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

So, what's the next step?


As a next step, I'd map motorcycle taxis as amenity=motorcycle_taxi. 
Vote with your mapping.



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

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Lukas-458]

"1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane"

 

I believe at least with this key it would be a waste of time, yes, because taxi=yes is already an access tag and then we get into a chaos. If really wanted it would have to be something like "taxi:type", but this was just for noticing, because I was some of them who were opposed to expand amenity=taxi's definition.

 
--Lukas

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 07. Mai 2020 um 20:49 Uhr
Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Betreff: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved


The voting period closed for amenity=motorcycle_taxi with 11 votes to approve and 8 votes in opposition, therefore it is not approved, since the 74% majority requirement was not met.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi#Voting

Opposing voters preferred using amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes or amenity=taxi + taxi=motorcycle
 

Surprisingly, at least 2 opposing voters would be willing to use amenity=taxi + taxi=submarine or taxi=airplane for a location where you could hire a submarine or airplane. 

 

However, several "yes" voters were strongly opposed to expanding the definition of amenity=taxi which currently is limited to taxicabs (generally assumed to be 4-wheel motor vehicles in contemporary British English).

 

So, what's the next step? 

 

1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get that idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail), or is that a waste of everyone's time?

 

2) Make a proposal to clarify the definition of amenity=taxi as only applying to motorcars, then try to propose the tag again?

 

3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian community, like how the Japanese mapper community proposes locally-relevant definitions?

 

4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which were not invented in the West?

 

-- Joseph Eisenberg

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




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