Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
/ DISCLAIMER / Trying to keep here only what is relevant to initial request. Starting new threads for side topics. previous proposals: - armed_forces - army. - military - military_vehicles - military_personnel cannot be military because that key is taken First: Shame that namespace is not enforced because access:military=* would be so clear and easy. Second choice: I would like military. Is the overload of the key such a no-go... Third: I'll go for military_vehicles. Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: [...] while I would support this move, I think we should spell these out and not reduce the information, so psv should become public_service_vehicle, hov - heavy_occupancy_vehicle [...] hgv - heavy_goods_vehicle etc. previous proposals: private_hire / car_hire_with_driver Some others ideas to consider: - vehicle_hire_with_driver, - private_driver, [...] Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: no, I'd clearly go for private_hire For consistency you could consider here: private_hire - private_hire_vehicle or vehicle_hire_with_driver? I am surprised by your choice of private_hire because this is the only case where I find that the definition is too implicit and requires the additional _vehicle. Even if the expression private hire vehicle is common, with only private hire you could privately hire anything from cars with or without driver to bicycles and horses and caravans. * private_hire_vehicle or vehicle_hire_with_driver: clear and understandable anywhere in the world * private_hire: starting to be ambiguous and maybe specifically related to England * minicab: even worse as it seems to be specific to London only and people around the world may understand 'minicab' as some sort of small cab/taxicab. Very misleading IMO. (4) attempt to modify access categories and labels Would you care to present a similar version of your ideas? It would be useful to see how you want to arrange labels and hierarchy for the categories you are describing. Maybe on the discussion page like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Draft_of_hierarchy_for_land-based_transportation_mode ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
2014-12-04 16:29 GMT+01:00 althio forum althio.fo...@gmail.com: Second choice: I would like military. Is the overload of the key such a no-go... Third: I'll go for military_vehicles. +1 actually I am not completely sure about the overload problem, because we already do it elsewhere (might be a problem there as well), e.g. the key bus is not reserved to access-tagging alone, it is also used to declare the type of stop in the public transport alternative tagging (which didn't ultimately manage to takeover). Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: no, I'd clearly go for private_hire For consistency you could consider here: private_hire - private_hire_vehicle or vehicle_hire_with_driver? I am surprised by your choice of private_hire because this is the only case where I find that the definition is too implicit and requires the additional _vehicle. Even if the expression private hire vehicle is common, with only private hire you could privately hire anything from cars with or without driver to bicycles and horses and caravans. private hire seems to be a very established term, you can find something in wikipedia and if you search for it with a searchengine you'll get only pertinent results in the first pages. No _vehicle postfix typically. We could add it still, because OSM tags are not only used by natives, but it is definitely longer ;-) (4) attempt to modify access categories and labels Would you care to present a similar version of your ideas? It would be useful to see how you want to arrange labels and hierarchy for the categories you are describing. Maybe on the discussion page like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Draft_of_hierarchy_for_land-based_transportation_mode yes, I think its time to move over to the wiki and set up a proposal. Thanks all for your input, I'll post a link here when I've a draft for the proposal. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
Am 04.12.2014 um 16:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2014-12-04 16:29 GMT+01:00 althio forum althio.fo...@gmail.com mailto:althio.fo...@gmail.com: Second choice: I would like military. Is the overload of the key such a no-go... Third: I'll go for military_vehicles. +1 actually I am not completely sure about the overload problem, because we already do it elsewhere (might be a problem there as well), e.g. the key bus is not reserved to access-tagging alone, it is also used to declare the type of stop in the public transport alternative tagging (which didn't ultimately manage to takeover). +1 E.g. emergency=* has the same problem [1]. Imagine for example an emergency facility (e.g. emergency=ambulance_station) with access-restrictions (e.g. access=no + emergency=yes). You see the conflict? [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 17:23 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-12-02 15:04 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: I would suggest the tag private_hire. thank you, that sounds good and superficial internet search confirms that we are talking about the same kind of service. Would you agree that those aren't a part of psv? In the UK they are not PSV, they are not allowed to use bus lanes, which taxis are able to. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On 2014-12-03 at 06:35:29 +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: Are there really road signs with addional plates listing all of that stuff? often, yes How big are those signs, and how long does it take for a driver to read them? enought time that you just don't stop to read them and assume that you're not allowed :) Usually the exceptions are for categories that local enought to know about them, anyway. I guess that these regulations are not done by explicit listing, but by definition of ZTLs in the laws. So all you need is a tag like highway=ztl or highway=pedestrian+pedestrian=ztl, and some comment on the default access page. AFAIK there is no uniform definition in the italian laws, they are defined in the town laws, and every town is free to mix-and-match their own rules. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
Are there really road signs with additional plates listing all of that stuff? Some egregious example from Poland: https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0661474,19.9390468,3a,41.6y,230.88h,84.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-rGw0-IoKZGQKjyZKeRl0Q!2e0?hl=en How big are those signs, and how long does it take for a driver to read them? Local government claims that law in Poland as it is written mandates explicit listing of allowed types of transport. 2014-12-03 6:35 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 24.11.2014 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: We are currently trying on the Italian mailing list to get a good tagging for the ZTL (zona a traffico limitato - limited traffic zone), which do exist in various Italian cities and are not LEZ (low emmission zones) because the latter according to the wiki and external definitions are zones which are installed to reduce air pollution and to get cleaner air, what holds not true or is not the only aim of Italian ZTLs. On example of rules for the example of the Prato ZTL: transit forbidden to motorvehicles from 7:30 to 18:30 except: - authorized - motorcycles - mopeds / mofas - public transport - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver) - disabled - emergency - armed forces - police - fire department - ambulances - homeland security (protezione civile) - public administration Are there really road signs with addional plates listing all of that stuff? How big are those signs, and how long does it take for a driver to read them? I guess that these regulations are not done by explicit listing, but by definition of ZTLs in the laws. So all you need is a tag like highway=ztl or highway=pedestrian+pedestrian=ztl, and some comment on the default access page. It does not make sense to invent new access tags for every obscure purpose like home_land_security=yes or access=mister_john_miller. Use the generic access=private for those purposes. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ 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] access in the wiki
W dniu 2014-12-03 11:02, Mateusz Konieczny pisze: Are there really road signs with additional plates listing all of that stuff? Some egregious example from Poland: https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0661474,19.9390468,3a,41.6y,230.88h,84.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-rGw0-IoKZGQKjyZKeRl0Q!2e0?hl=en https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0661474,19.9390468,3a,41.6y,230.88h,84.66t/data=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211s-rGw0-IoKZGQKjyZKeRl0Q%212e0?hl=en Another one epic plate I saw in Warsaw: https://www.google.pl/maps/@52.2419907,21.0159551,3a,17.1y,286.86h,91.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suB7V1UBTNf6hqIsVJcaOsw!2e0?hl=en Yes, they sometimes happen to be _that_ specific - I guess basically in such special places like that ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Route,_Warsaw ), where it's impossible to exclude all the traffic, but it's essential to restrict it as much as possible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
2014-12-02 21:05 GMT+01:00 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl: On 02/12/2014 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki: - armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be military because that key is taken) I think military_personnel=* is better. Armed forces in my opinion refers to the entire organisation whereas military personnel according to wikipedia refers to members of the armed forces. Maybe separate classes for types of military vehicles are needed as well? I am not sure on personell, because this refers to people, while I think that the exception refers to vehicles in military service (I am not completely sure how it is written, this exception was reported by a local mapper (I guess from a sign that is there), but is not found in the text I have linked (maybe because this text is generally about individual permissions, and they do not need it). I also still think that tram could be a subclass of landbased transportation - vehicle - motor_vehicle - psv (yes, they are on rails, but they are also part of road transport if their rails aren't separated from the road). I don't see a big need for this class. The access is already defined by the presence of physical rails. On the other hand we might need a key for trolley buses as they behave like buses but with physical restrictions on where they can go. There are no rails defining their access and I'm not aware of a tagging scheme for the contact lines. trams might be excluded from turn_restrictions for instance. Also the presence of rails does not mean that the tram is automatically allowed to go there, there might be oneway restrictions or the rails could be old: It happens from time to time that traffic flows are reorganized, but the rails will typically not be removed instantly. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
2014-12-03 6:35 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: I guess that these regulations are not done by explicit listing, but by definition of ZTLs in the laws. So all you need is a tag like highway=ztl or highway=pedestrian+pedestrian=ztl, and some comment on the default access page. It seems you are writing about stuff you absolutely have no idea about. If all we needed to do was what you wrote above, we would have done this rather than discussing access tagging improvements here. A ZTL is typically defining access restrictions, it has nothing to do with a road class. There are typically big signs with longs lists of exceptions written in tiny fonts, and yes, you won't have time to read them when you are driving (and mostly you won't have access if you don't know what is written there, i.e. if you are not a local). Sometimes there are also policemen to control who enters (you'd have to stop and talk to them in order to enter). ZTLs are defined on a municipal level (or city level in bigger cities), and every ZTL can (and does) have its own rules, often time dependent (e.g. some are valid Mo-Fr daytimes, others the weekend in the night, etc.), there are even rules like on every second day you can enter with a vehicle with even number on the number plate, and the other days the uneven number plates have access. When the ZTL is not active, these are normal streets (mostly residential). It does not make sense to invent new access tags for every obscure purpose like home_land_security=yes or access=mister_john_miller. Use the generic access=private for those purposes. I agree that it doesn't make sense to tag access=mister_john_smith but homeland_security=yes is a completely different case and could indeed have some sense (I am not proposing this here, because I have not yet encountered such a sign). Please note that I only proposed 3 new categories and asked to put tram in the psv class: - private_hire (key name by Phil Barnes) - public_utility (or similar key name) - military vehicles/services/personnel Regarding trams, there is another issue: there is a key:tram page from 2011 that redirects to access (where there is no mention of a tram key), but the actual usage (I guess, not checked) is within the public_transport tagging scheme to say which kind of stop (bus, tram etc.) there is. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
Long post to follow so this is a short version. too long; didn't read [TL;DR]: (1) proposing tagging for zone like ZTL: highway/zone:traffic=IT:limited_traffic_zone (2) proposing access=authorised (3) I don't like acronyms (4) attempt to modify access categories and labels Long post: Old proposal trafficzone [1] has some overlap with this discussion on zones and restriction access. It was limited to traffic and was excluding access/restrictions but that could be adapted for the sake of flexibility and usability. So possible tag for a ZTL in Italy could be: highway=IT:limited_traffic_zone (scheme similar to highway=living_street) OR highway=residential/pedestrian + zone:traffic=IT:limited_traffic_zone (scheme similar to zone:maxspeed=FR:30 or zone:traffic=DE:urban) A few interesting excerpts IMO: This proposal [trafficzone] wants to install a tagging-scheme for implicit traffic-laws [...] A traffic zone often bundles a lot of restrictions: not only maxspeeds for various vehicle types, but additional regulations depending on local law. Mapping reality proves that mappers don't add all those tags, they might not even know about all those restrictions. But they are able to identify traffic zones. Using zone:traffic allows to distinguish between explicitly signed restrictions and those that are defaults for the zone. This has several advantages: - It becomes trivial to deal with some changes in traffic laws. - A mapper re-checking an area knows whether to look for explicit signage. As a proposal it is old and still a draft but it is used nonetheless [2]. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: Are there really road signs with addional plates listing all of that stuff? How big are those signs, and how long does it take for a driver to read them? Quite big, quite long. Let pictures speak [3;4;5]. I guess that these regulations are not done by explicit listing, but by definition of ZTLs in the laws. So all you need is a tag like highway=ztl or highway=pedestrian+pedestrian=ztl, and some comment on the default access page. I would prefer without acronyms, hence *=IT:limited_traffic_zone. It does not make sense to invent new access tags for every obscure purpose like home_land_security=yes or access=mister_john_miller. Use the generic access=private for those purposes. Would another generic value like access=authorised allow a useful distinction from access=private? private: Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. authorised: Only with authorisation (from public authority) by regulations and special exemptions. I think it would be easy to use authorised since it is explicitly used on some signs. In several countries [7,8,9,10]. Moving forward to the access wiki page... Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: But there are some categories for which we currently do not have suitable tags (AFAIK): previous proposals: armed_forces / military / military_personnel Some other ideas: military_vehicles and army. I like military_vehicles because it is different but still related to the key:military and landuse=military. Furthermore this [military vehicles]=yes/no is quite close to emergency=yes and might be considered as subclass of public_utility or emergency. reference: Emergency_service on wikipedia.org [6] Other emergency services Military — to provide specialist services, such as bomb disposal or to supplement emergency services at times of major disaster, civil dispute or high demand. - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver) previous proposals: private_hire / car_hire_with_driver Some others ideas to consider: - vehicle_hire_with_driver, - private_driver, - driver_hire, - driver_service, (also replace _driver_ by _chauffeur_), - ridesharing, - ridesharing_service. It is hard also to decide if [vehicle hire with driver] is a standalone category or if it falls by default as subclass under psv (not public but private, private but public service) or hov (carpooling and ridesharing are quite close but ridesharing private service is quite different especially when the driver is alone). This could be another topic but still in access: I don't like acronyms so I would put into question: - psv public_service or public_transport - hov carpool - hgv heavy_goods Other nitpicks: Taxi are PSV under english regulations, but is this the case in all other countries? What about [vehicle hire with driver]? And an attempt to put all this together: Values Value | Description yes | The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way private | Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis authorised | Only with authorisation (from public authority) by regulations and special exemptions [...] Transport mode restrictions access=* (category: any land-based transportation mode) vehicle=* (category: any vehicle) motor_vehicle=* (category: any motorized vehicle)
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
2014-12-03 12:35 GMT+01:00 althio forum althio.fo...@gmail.com: Long post to follow so this is a short version. (1) proposing tagging for zone like ZTL: highway/zone:traffic=IT:limited_traffic_zone there is actually a proposal for this kind of zone, to be mapped as a polygon, useful e.g. for rendering (with name, ref, etc.), but probably not very transparent to inherit access-tags to ways from this. I had linked this also in the first message: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dlimited_traffic_zone I wouldn't prefix this with IT because this is not something that gets specified or enabled on a national level. (2) proposing access=authorised this won't work (we should have vehicle specific tags, not general ones), and authorized as a value seems the same than private. (3) I don't like acronyms +1 So possible tag for a ZTL in Italy could be: highway=IT:limited_traffic_zone (scheme similar to highway=living_street) OR highway=residential/pedestrian + zone:traffic=IT:limited_traffic_zone (scheme similar to zone:maxspeed=FR:30 or zone:traffic=DE:urban) you won't gain anything with this tagging, because every ZTL has its own restrictions, times, exceptions, etc. A few interesting excerpts IMO: This proposal [trafficzone] wants to install a tagging-scheme for implicit traffic-laws [...] A traffic zone often bundles a lot of restrictions: not only maxspeeds for various vehicle types, but additional regulations depending on local law. Mapping reality proves that mappers don't add all those tags, they might not even know about all those restrictions. But they are able to identify traffic zones. helpful for German living streets for instance, OK (albeit the mapping has developed towards tagging each street, not zones). The difference is that these do have nationwide the same rules and conditions, unlike ZTLs. Would another generic value like access=authorised allow a useful distinction from access=private? no, its the same Furthermore this [military vehicles]=yes/no is quite close to emergency=yes and might be considered as subclass of public_utility or emergency. we might consider it a subclass of public_utility (I guess typically it would not be seen as such, but as a class on its own), but it surely isn't a subclass of emergency (IMHO) reference: Emergency_service on wikipedia.org [6] Other emergency services Military — to provide specialist services, such as bomb disposal or to supplement emergency services at times of major disaster, civil dispute or high demand. yes, but this is a tiny subclass of all military vehicles / services. - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver) previous proposals: private_hire / car_hire_with_driver Some others ideas to consider: - vehicle_hire_with_driver, - private_driver, - driver_hire, - driver_service, (also replace _driver_ by _chauffeur_), no, I'd clearly go for private_hire (or maybe minicab) as these are apparently standard terms, while the other terms you are suggesting as alternatives seem at best misleading or describing something different (private_driver, etc.) - ridesharing, - ridesharing_service. - different stuff This could be another topic but still in access: I don't like acronyms so I would put into question: - psv public_service or public_transport - hov carpool - hgv heavy_goods yes, it is a different topic, and while I would support this move, I think we should spell these out and not reduce the information, so psv should become public_service_vehicle, hov - heavy_occupancy_vehicle (this is not about carpooling but about the number of people in the car), hgv - heavy_goods_vehicle etc. Other nitpicks: Taxi are PSV under english regulations, but is this the case in all other countries? it is the case in OSM, so if psv is yes, but taxis are no, you would have to tag both, while in the other case you could use psv=yes and taxi=yes would not be needed (implied) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
Appearantly nobody cares for access any more? Maybe my mail was too long, or you got the impression that this was referring to Italy only. In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki: - armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be military because that key is taken) - car_hire_with_driver (yes, this is not a handy key name, any better suggestion welcome, but should be explicit). This class exists at least in Italy and Germany, but I guess there are other countries as well. These are legally distinct from taxis and not generally included in PSV but there can be exceptions where they are treated like taxis (e.g. permission to use priority lanes). - public_utility (this was referred to as public administration in my original mail, but has now been corrected after I found the actual legal text [1]). these include: public bodies / statutory corporations and public offices, assisting associations, private companies with scopes of public utility, individual citizens with public functions (these all require an individual permit in this particular example so in OSM this would be private) and cars of public administrations visiting the city (no individual permit needed in this case) I also still think that tram could be a subclass of landbased transportation - vehicle - motor_vehicle - psv (yes, they are on rails, but they are also part of road transport if their rails aren't separated from the road). cheers, Martin ___ [1] http://allegatiregolamenti.comune.prato.it/dl/20120214121514702/permessi.txt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: - public_utility (this was referred to as public administration in my original mail, but has now been corrected after I found the actual legal text [1]). these include: public bodies / statutory corporations and public offices, assisting associations, private companies with scopes of public utility, individual citizens with public functions (these all require an individual permit in this particular example so in OSM this would be private) and cars of public administrations visiting the city (no individual permit needed in this case) I must have missed your original mail, because I was thinking of posting a question on how to map access for this category. At least I hope this corresponds to Uitgezonderd Diensten (Except services -- e.g. for road maintenance or parks etc.) in Belgium. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On Tue Dec 02 2014 13:48:56 GMT+ (GMT), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Appearantly nobody cares for access any more? Maybe my mail was too long, or you got the impression that this was referring to Italy only. In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki: - armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be military because that key is taken) - car_hire_with_driver (yes, this is not a handy key name, any better suggestion welcome, but should be explicit). This class exists at least in Italy and Germany, but I guess there are other countries as well. These are legally distinct from taxis and not generally included in PSV but there can be exceptions where they are treated like taxis (e.g. permission to use priority lanes). In UK english these are private hire, and are distinct from hackey carriages (taxis ). I would suggest the tag private_hire. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
2014-12-02 15:04 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: I would suggest the tag private_hire. thank you, that sounds good and superficial internet search confirms that we are talking about the same kind of service. Would you agree that those aren't a part of psv? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On 02/12/2014 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki: - armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be military because that key is taken) I think military_personnel=* is better. Armed forces in my opinion refers to the entire organisation whereas military personnel according to wikipedia refers to members of the armed forces. Maybe separate classes for types of military vehicles are needed as well? I also still think that tram could be a subclass of landbased transportation - vehicle - motor_vehicle - psv (yes, they are on rails, but they are also part of road transport if their rails aren't separated from the road). I don't see a big need for this class. The access is already defined by the presence of physical rails. On the other hand we might need a key for trolley buses as they behave like buses but with physical restrictions on where they can go. There are no rails defining their access and I'm not aware of a tagging scheme for the contact lines. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki
On 24.11.2014 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: We are currently trying on the Italian mailing list to get a good tagging for the ZTL (zona a traffico limitato - limited traffic zone), which do exist in various Italian cities and are not LEZ (low emmission zones) because the latter according to the wiki and external definitions are zones which are installed to reduce air pollution and to get cleaner air, what holds not true or is not the only aim of Italian ZTLs. On example of rules for the example of the Prato ZTL: transit forbidden to motorvehicles from 7:30 to 18:30 except: - authorized - motorcycles - mopeds / mofas - public transport - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver) - disabled - emergency - armed forces - police - fire department - ambulances - homeland security (protezione civile) - public administration Are there really road signs with addional plates listing all of that stuff? How big are those signs, and how long does it take for a driver to read them? I guess that these regulations are not done by explicit listing, but by definition of ZTLs in the laws. So all you need is a tag like highway=ztl or highway=pedestrian+pedestrian=ztl, and some comment on the default access page. It does not make sense to invent new access tags for every obscure purpose like home_land_security=yes or access=mister_john_miller. Use the generic access=private for those purposes. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] access in the wiki
We are currently trying on the Italian mailing list to get a good tagging for the ZTL (zona a traffico limitato - limited traffic zone), which do exist in various Italian cities and are not LEZ (low emmission zones) because the latter according to the wiki and external definitions are zones which are installed to reduce air pollution and to get cleaner air, what holds not true or is not the only aim of Italian ZTLs. On example of rules for the example of the Prato ZTL: transit forbidden to motorvehicles from 7:30 to 18:30 except: - authorized - motorcycles - mopeds / mofas - public transport - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver) - disabled - emergency - armed forces - police - fire department - ambulances - homeland security (protezione civile) - public administration __ This can be roughly translated to motorcar=private motorcar:conditional=yes @ (18:30-07:30) emergency=yes psv=yes disabled=yes (using the deny all, allow conditional way to be on the safe side if conditional restrictions are ignored). But there are some categories for which we currently do not have suitable tags (AFAIK): - armed forces - NCC (?) - public administration According to the wiki, psv currently comprises only buses and taxis (strangely, IMHO at least trams would have to be included as well), and maybe NCC can be seen as included as well (will discuss this on the Italian list). My suggestion is to amend the access-page in the wiki with military (using for armed forces) public_administration and to add tram as subclass of psv. Cheers, Martin References: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dlimited_traffic_zone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/15 martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de in service was (and is) not required by the definition description of the psv tag or the taxi. Only in bus it was mixed in (acting as a public service). in service is implicit in public service vehicle, because if they are not in service they are not psv. For taxi I am not sure, I don't know whether a taxi is a taxi when the driver is not working, but my guess is it is not. Maybe someone has more references to clear this up. There is no way to tag taxi in service so far in OSM, only taxi (as a car category). is there really a taxi vehicle category? I am aware that the vehicle has certain requisites e.g. in Germany in order to be able to work as taxi, but I am not sure if it is a taxi also off duty. So I do not agree that taxi and psv belong to the by-use group. OK, if you get more we have to think about how this can be handled (e.g. voting?) I strongly suggest to move psv, bus and taxi back to the original place in the wiki! for bus there shouldn't be space for discussion, as the definition is explicit for a long time. Most mappers are not native English speakers. We can only guess what they really understand and have understood. But I don't think it is an intuitive tag. I think that people that are not native speakers are less of a problem, as they won't have an idea about the meaning of a cryptic abbreviation prior to looking it up in the wiki, while people speaking English but not UK English as their mothertongue are more at risk of understanding something else (and not looking the definition up in the wiki). I do agree that it is not an intuitive tag (but it saves us lots of bytes in the db ;-) ), and it is a very old tag and quite used. 2) Introduce value public_transport omnibus=no bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport IMHO we can stick to psv. not clear to me. psv for what? as generic term for buses and taxis. I agree that creating a new vehicle class omnibus is also appealing, and there are currently 0 uses of this key so it might work out. Separating bus as vehicle category from by-use - and putting it into a value like - is not just more consistent: It is more flexible (I can distinguish between taxi in service and any taxi the same way), it easier to understand what omnibus=public_transport means, compared to the current bus=yes. +1 3) Depreciatepsv (or broaden the meaning to all public service because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that plugin? broaden the usage will probably not get a majority, but we can see. Not sure if this is needed anyway. no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this artificial group: Grouping taxi (both in service as well as not in service) with only those buses acting as public transport. Taxi access and bus access are distinct things. No ambiguous, poorly understood (here the poor plug-in just confirms that PSV is not well-understood) short-cut like psv is needed. If taxi and bus can access, why not bus=* taxi=*? you mean omnibus rather than bus, no? +1 By the way: The key name tourist_bus is also non-intuitive, not every non-public transport bus is a tourist bus well, as this doesn't seem to be well defined outside of OSM we can use what we think is OK, currently the definition is a bus not acting as a public service vehicle cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
Nobody uses the archaic word omnibus these days. You may as well suggest replacing car with horseless carriage. I really think we are trying to square a circle here. There are irreconcilable differences between countries, and we should not waste our energy in a war of attrition. Whether a taxi with no passengers is still a taxi, whether a bus on its way back to the depot is still a PSV, whether a bus being driven by a mechanic on a test-drive is allowed in a bus lane, all these things are going to vary by country. Why don't we all come up individually with a model which fits our own countries, and then we can see how much correlation there is between the countries. A few questions which come to mind: * If there is a road sign indicating Taxis only (might be a road, might be parking), what is considered a Taxi? * When is a bus allowed to use a bus lane? Does it include long-distance scheduled services? Does it include touring cars (a.k.a. coaches in the UK)? Does it include sightseeing tours? * What is considered a PSV? Does this concept actually exist in your country - for vehicle licensing or for driver licensing or something else? This is intended to *derive* a model of reality, instead of suggesting thousands of potential ways of tagging things until almost everyone gives up and goes home. Whatever tagging scheme is used, it should have some way of representing reality in many (preferably all) countries. If the semantics of a tag/value are different by country, let us just document the standards for that country and move on. Colin On 2014-01-16 16:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/15 martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de in service was (and is) not required by the definition description of the psv tag or the taxi. Only in bus it was mixed in (acting as a public service). in service is implicit in public service vehicle, because if they are not in service they are not psv. For taxi I am not sure, I don't know whether a taxi is a taxi when the driver is not working, but my guess is it is not. Maybe someone has more references to clear this up. There is no way to tag taxi in service so far in OSM, only taxi (as a car category). is there really a taxi vehicle category? I am aware that the vehicle has certain requisites e.g. in Germany in order to be able to work as taxi, but I am not sure if it is a taxi also off duty. So I do not agree that taxi and psv belong to the by-use group. OK, if you get more we have to think about how this can be handled (e.g. voting?) I strongly suggest to move psv, bus and taxi back to the original place in the wiki! for bus there shouldn't be space for discussion, as the definition is explicit for a long time. Most mappers are not native English speakers. We can only guess what they really understand and have understood. But I don't think it is an intuitive tag. I think that people that are not native speakers are less of a problem, as they won't have an idea about the meaning of a cryptic abbreviation prior to looking it up in the wiki, while people speaking English but not UK English as their mothertongue are more at risk of understanding something else (and not looking the definition up in the wiki). I do agree that it is not an intuitive tag (but it saves us lots of bytes in the db ;-) ), and it is a very old tag and quite used. 2) Introduce value public_transport omnibus=no bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport IMHO we can stick to psv. not clear to me. psv for what? as generic term for buses and taxis. I agree that creating a new vehicle class omnibus is also appealing, and there are currently 0 uses of this key so it might work out. Separating bus as vehicle category from by-use - and putting it into a value like - is not just more consistent: It is more flexible (I can distinguish between taxi in service and any taxi the same way), it easier to understand what omnibus=public_transport means, compared to the current bus=yes. +1 3) Depreciatepsv (or broaden the meaning to all public service because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that plugin? broaden the usage will probably not get a majority, but we can see. Not sure if this is needed anyway. no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this artificial group: Grouping taxi (both in service as well as not in service) with only those buses acting as public transport. Taxi access and bus access are distinct things. No ambiguous, poorly understood (here the poor plug-in just confirms that PSV is not well-understood) short-cut like psv is needed. If taxi and bus can access, why not bus=* taxi=*? you mean omnibus rather than bus, no? +1 By the way: The key name tourist_bus is also non-intuitive, not every non-public transport bus is a tourist bus well, as this doesn't seem to be well defined outside of
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/16 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl Nobody uses the archaic word omnibus these days. this is not a real problem, rather it might be a benefit, because it will avoid people using the term and guessing about the meaning. You may as well suggest replacing car with horseless carriage. probably the latter is more inclusive... I really think we are trying to square a circle here. There are irreconcilable differences between countries, and we should not waste our energy in a war of attrition. Whether a taxi with no passengers is still a taxi, whether a bus on its way back to the depot is still a PSV, whether a bus being driven by a mechanic on a test-drive is allowed in a bus lane, all these things are going to vary by country. maybe it will vary, but there is no doubt that there are at least 2 types of buses, those acting as psv and the vehicle class bus, I can confirm the necessity to distinct for at least Germany and Italy, but I guess is that this is relevant for many countries. Why don't we all come up individually with a model which fits our own countries, and then we can see how much correlation there is between the countries. this discussion rose out of the need to find suitable tags for real world situations A few questions which come to mind: - If there is a road sign indicating Taxis only (might be a road, might be parking), what is considered a Taxi? I have spent half an hour today trying to find this out for Germany and couldn't find an answer. But I have found other interesting facts, e.g. the sign for bus=yes (for buses acting as psv) in Germany allows access for all kind of vehicles that do Linienverkehr (line traffic / line operation), i.e. it excludes taxis (if there is not an additional sign) but it would allow a car in line operation (there is a definition what line operation is). - When is a bus allowed to use a bus lane? Does it include long-distance scheduled services? Does it include touring cars (a.k.a. coaches in the UK)? Does it include sightseeing tours? in the countries where I know the details, coaches are not allowed on bus lanes (hence the need for 2 kind of buses). Whatever tagging scheme is used, it should have some way of representing reality in many (preferably all) countries. +1 If the semantics of a tag/value are different by country, let us just document the standards for that country and move on. I'd prefer to use a different tag then, because that's what tagging is about: describing the real situation with k/v pairs. What's the point of using the same tag with different meaning? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
On 2014-01-16 17:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/16 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl If the semantics of a tag/value are different by country, let us just document the standards for that country and move on. I'd prefer to use a different tag then, because that's what tagging is about: describing the real situation with k/v pairs. What's the point of using the same tag with different meaning? Then we should not use tags which mean different things to different people. Instead of bus, should we use vehicle_constructed_or_adapted_for_the_carriage_of_individual_fare-paying_passengers_on_scheduled_service in one country and vehicle_constructed_for_the_carriage_of_passengers_over_short_distances in another? Seriously, this is what we do all the time. Highway=trunk for example - many differing interpretations across the world, but usually more-or-less consistent within countries. We can all dream of a nice uniform world where all these debates are no longer needed, but it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime... In the mean time, we have to adapt our model to fit the world, because going the other way has proven rather challenging. Colin cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
Hi, I think this is in danger of getting too technical. As a for instance; a taxi in the UK is actually legally classed as a 'hackney carriage'. However it normally carries a sign saying 'taxi' and in general terms everyone knows what a taxi in the UK is. The driver, if employed as a 'taxi driver' will have had a test passed additional requirements to have a hackney carriage license - but will stop if you shout 'TAXI'. I've seen 'taxi' written on the road several times, but never 'hackney carriage'. Throughout the world I am sure there are similar legal definitions, but you will probably recognize something that will take you and your luggage, and will have a similar function to a UK taxi. Some kind of similar abbreviation to 'taxi' will be written on the road. I'm sure that in every country the driver themselves, plus the legal professions, will know the legal definitions, and will consider any navigation system or map as an 'indication only' - if you were stopped in the wrong place or using the wrong traffic lane you might blame the satnav, but you can't use it as a legal defense. There will be similar long winded legal definitions for omnibus, bus, coach, tram, etc. etc. They probably won't cover the lovingly restored vehicle from 1907 which doesn't carry fare paying passengers, or any other number of similar exemptions. In the UK we are lucky enough to have the highway code, which gives us simple guidance, and there are probably similar documents available for other countries. If we're tagging a lane marked 'buses taxis only', then the tags should be similarly simple, and it's up to the vehicle driver to make sure they are complying with the laws applicable to them, and it's not up to us to add tags for every obscure legal definition available. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On 16/01/14 16:13, Colin Smale wrote: Nobody uses the archaic word omnibus these days. You may as well suggest replacing car with horseless carriage. I really think we are trying to square a circle here. There are irreconcilable differences between countries, and we should not waste our energy in a war of attrition. Whether a taxi with no passengers is still a taxi, whether a bus on its way back to the depot is still a PSV, whether a bus being driven by a mechanic on a test-drive is allowed in a bus lane, all these things are going to vary by country. Why don't we all come up individually with a model which fits our own countries, and then we can see how much correlation there is between the countries. A few questions which come to mind: * If there is a road sign indicating Taxis only (might be a road, might be parking), what is considered a Taxi? * When is a bus allowed to use a bus lane? Does it include long-distance scheduled services? Does it include touring cars (a.k.a. coaches in the UK)? Does it include sightseeing tours? * What is considered a PSV? Does this concept actually exist in your country - for vehicle licensing or for driver licensing or something else? This is intended to *derive* a model of reality, instead of suggesting thousands of potential ways of tagging things until almost everyone gives up and goes home. Whatever tagging scheme is used, it should have some way of representing reality in many (preferably all) countries. If the semantics of a tag/value are different by country, let us just document the standards for that country and move on. Colin On 2014-01-16 16:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/15 martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de mailto:osm-mart...@fantasymail.de in service was (and is) not required by the definition description of the psv tag or the taxi. Only in bus it was mixed in (acting as a public service). in service is implicit in public service vehicle, because if they are not in service they are not psv. For taxi I am not sure, I don't know whether a taxi is a taxi when the driver is not working, but my guess is it is not. Maybe someone has more references to clear this up. There is no way to tag taxi in service so far in OSM, only taxi (as a car category). is there really a taxi vehicle category? I am aware that the vehicle has certain requisites e.g. in Germany in order to be able to work as taxi, but I am not sure if it is a taxi also off duty. So I do not agree that taxi and psv belong to the by-use group. OK, if you get more we have to think about how this can be handled (e.g. voting?) I strongly suggest to move psv, bus and taxi back to the original place in the wiki! for bus there shouldn't be space for discussion, as the definition is explicit for a long time. Most mappers are not native English speakers. We can only guess what they really understand and have understood. But I don't think it is an intuitive tag. I think that people that are not native speakers are less of a problem, as they won't have an idea
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
I have interpreted psv (public service VEHICLE), bus and taxi as vehicle categories in the past, but never required these keys in my area. So for me an empty taxi is allowed on taxi=yes. it is not a question whether it is empty or not (it might be going to pick up someone) but whether it is in service. in service was (and is) not required by the definition description of the psv tag or the taxi. Only in bus it was mixed in (acting as a public service). There is no way to tag taxi in service so far in OSM, only taxi (as a car category). So I do not agree that taxi and psv belong to the by-use group. I strongly suggest to move psv, bus and taxi back to the original place in the wiki! There are two issues, nobody has probably paid attention on so far: 1) public service is not public transport, as intended by the creators of the key. So if people make a road cleaning truck or an ambulance a PSV, then this was maybe not intended, but a result of ambiguous documentation/naming. if you look at wikipedia for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSV this get's redirected to bus, so my guess is, that the common usage of this term is the same than the definition in OSM and not including all kind of public vehicles. Most mappers are not native English speakers. We can only guess what they really understand and have understood. But I don't think it is an intuitive tag. The source of defining psv as bus+taxi (taxi as public service is questionable by the way) is probably UK: https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences But that does not make the tags intuitive. Non-intuitive tags sadly don't work well, no matter how good the wiki-documentation is... 2) Introduce value public_transport omnibus=no bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport IMHO we can stick to psv. not clear to me. psv for what? Separating bus as vehicle category from by-use - and putting it into a value like - is not just more consistent: It is more flexible (I can distinguish between taxi in service and any taxi the same way), it easier to understand what omnibus=public_transport means, compared to the current bus=yes. 3) Depreciatepsv (or broaden the meaning to all public service because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that plugin? no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this artificial group: Grouping taxi (both in service as well as not in service) with only those buses acting as public transport. Taxi access and bus access are distinct things. No ambiguous, poorly understood (here the poor plug-in just confirms that PSV is not well-understood) short-cut like psv is needed. If taxi and bus can access, why not bus=* taxi=*? 4) Depreciate tourist_bus: There is no longer the need for tagging both (bus=yes and tourist_bus=yes) in the case any bus category is meant. It can be expressed by omnibus=yes now. not sure. I introduced this key because of a sign that said explicitly: tourist_bus=no. OK, didn't know the history about a sign. I thought it was introduced because bus was not covering all buses: Without tourist_bus it is impossible to tag that no buses are allowed. bus=no is not sufficient, because it was restricted to acting as public transport. In the current schema accurate mappers must map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vorschriftszeichen_7f.svg as bus=no *and* as tourist_bus=no. I would bet many mappers haven't done this, because bus is misunderstood. By the way: The key name tourist_bus is also non-intuitive, not every non-public transport bus is a tourist bus. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
On 1/15/14 2:24 PM, martinq wrote: because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that plugin? no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this artificial group: Grouping taxi (both in service as well as not in service) with only those buses acting as public transport. Taxi access and bus access are distinct things. No ambiguous, poorly understood (here the poor plug-in just confirms that PSV is not well-understood) short-cut like psv is needed. If taxi and bus can access, why not bus=* taxi=*? i think the best fix for the josm plugin is simply to add a checkbox for the emergency=yes access tag to the dialog. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/13 martinq osm-mart...@fantasymail.de I have interpreted psv (public service VEHICLE), bus and taxi as vehicle categories in the past, but never required these keys in my area. So for me an empty taxi is allowed on taxi=yes. it is not a question whether it is empty or not (it might be going to pick up someone) but whether it is in service. There are two issues, nobody has probably paid attention on so far: 1) public service is not public transport, as intended by the creators of the key. So if people make a road cleaning truck or an ambulance a PSV, then this was maybe not intended, but a result of ambiguous documentation/naming. if you look at wikipedia for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSVthis get's redirected to bus, so my guess is, that the common usage of this term is the same than the definition in OSM and not including all kind of public vehicles. Also the approach to mix use (public service/transport) with vehicle type was probably not the best choice back in the early days. It created the weird issue of requiring a new category for buses not used for public transport, since orthogonal use and type cannot be freely combined. this is common in legislation too (two types of buses: the vehicle class and those operating as public transport vehicle). Better backward compatibility I refine my proposal in the other post a little bit: 1) Update key hierarchy: + omnibus Vehicle registered as bus +++ busOmnibus vehicle, used for public transport at point of access 2) Introduce value public_transport omnibus=no bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport IMHO we can stick to psv. 3) Depreciatepsv (or broaden the meaning to all public service vehicles) because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that plugin? 4) Depreciate tourist_bus: There is no longer the need for tagging both (bus=yes and tourist_bus=yes) in the case any bus category is meant. It can be expressed by omnibus=yes now. not sure. I introduced this key because of a sign that said explicitly: tourist_bus=no. Maybe this could be represented by omnibus=no bus=yes (or psv=yes), if these will be introduced and accepted, but as long as they arent I'd keep this key. It is currently used 849 times, it seems to be unambiguous, so no need to deprecate IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes section to the section by use, because that's what it is. I agree. (Usage, that relies on the current hierarchy should be limited to non-existent) Country differences again. Around here (Finland) all signs(* refer to just vehicles registered as a bus, even those that allow buses and taxis on their own lanes. Effectively nobody would try to use a personal bus anyway, because the extra running costs, costly and time consuming extra driver's licence, and difficulties in finding parking spaces would totally kill any time gains one could get from using bus lanes. I'm quite certain there are other countries, too, where the general reference to bus means and should mean all bus vehicles. Until October 2009 psv used to be described in the wiki with e.g. buses, not i.e. buses and the GB dwellers had to repeatedly explain that it's a term they use to mean both buses and taxis, with nobody stating just official transit buses on their route. At the moment, as the descriptions are, there's no tag that states vehicles registered as a bus, some have narrowed the 'bus' tag down to denote a bus acting as a public service vehicle only. *) I've seen only a few exceptions, signs stating something like no left turn, except line NN buses -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/13 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi Country differences again. Around here (Finland) all signs(* refer to just vehicles registered as a bus, even those that allow buses and taxis on their own lanes. Effectively nobody would try to use a personal bus anyway, because the extra running costs, costly and time consuming extra driver's licence, and difficulties in finding parking spaces would totally kill any time gains one could get from using bus lanes. I'm quite certain there are other countries, too, where the general reference to bus means and should mean all bus vehicles. I think we have to differentiate between the local laws and how they can be represented with osm tags. If there are signs that apply to all buses (i.e. to the bus vehicle class), and I am sure many countries do have those signs, than a simple bus-tag would not catch it, because it is reserved to public transport busses (at least this is what the wiki says). This was the reason I introduced tourist_bus some years ago, because I also had the problem that some signs were applying to all bus vehicles. Until October 2009 psv used to be described in the wiki with e.g. busses, not i.e. busses and the GB dwellers had to repeatedly explain that it's a term they use to mean both buses and taxis, with nobody stating just official transit buses on their route. At the moment, as the descriptions are, there's no tag that states vehicles registered as a bus, some have narrowed the 'bus' tag down to denote a bus acting as a public service vehicle only. psv reads public service vehicle, clearly a use type. e.g. busses is correct as is i.e. busses and taxis (but the latter might forget some other kind of psv). Still this clearly doesn't include any buses (vehicle class, usually vehicles with more than 8+1 seats) but only those that are in public service. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
Hi, I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes section to the section by use, because that's what it is. maybe that is what it should have been in the past. Sadly the actual use in real world tagging seems to interpret bus also as vehicle category (means the vehicle is registered as bus, in Europe class M2 or M3). Example: 3000 uses of maxspeed:bus, I am pretty sure these uses refer to vehicle category and not the use... See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Bus_has_multiple_meanings for an older discussion on the meaning of bus. There was no final agreement. Possible solution: use/purpose goes into the value, as we have already done it in agricultural or forestry (agricultural=* means vehicle type, *=agricultural means agricultural use), the key gets a vehicle category: bus=* refers to a vehicle registered as bus *=public (or public_transport, which is clearer but longer) if the vehicle in the key is used for public transport (public access, driving with strangers, no private negotiation needed) Example: bus=public_transport -- a registered bus is only allowed to access if it is used for public transport, excluding for example rented tour buses. bus=yes -- all registered buses can access, including hired buses Obvious issue: 200,000 uses of bus... Further refinement, e.g. bus:m2 or bus:m3, is possible, but I hardly see any need for this. -- Similar for taxi: taxi=* refers to vehicles registered as taxi. *=taxi (or taxi_service for clarity) refers to the use as taxi Examples: vehicle=taxi(_service) -- Only vehicles providing taxi service (no matter if small buses or special passenger cars) can access, so empty taxis cannot pass taxi=taxi(_service) -- Only vehicles registered as taxi AND providing taxi service can access taxi=yes -- Vehicles registered as taxi can access, including empty taxis without passengers Also here further hierarchical refinement is possible, e.g. taxicab and taxibus, but I do not see the need for this at the moment. There is a drawback of the use in values approach, but only for rare cases: 1) There is still no supported/accepted way to tag multiple values for the same key. But the more values we define, the more likely the demand for multiple values. 2) If other restrictions (maxweight or - more precisely - maxgcweight, maxgcweightrating or maxactualweight) are made conditional, we need an update of our conditional tagging, for example by introducing use: A maximum weight rating of 7.5 for everyone except public transport bus or agricultural traffic maxgcweightrating=7.5 maxgcweightrating=none @ use=agricultural maxgcweightrating:bus=none @ use=public_transport martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
Hi, sorry, made a mistake: 2) If other restrictions (maxweight or - more precisely - maxgcweight, maxgcweightrating or maxactualweight) are made conditional, we need an update of our conditional tagging, for example by introducing use: Of course this is already possible in conditional restrictions without use=: So the given example can already be expressed with the existing conditional restrictions: A maximum weight rating of 7.5 for everyone except public transport bus or agricultural traffic maxgcweightrating=7.5 maxgcweightrating=none @ agricultural maxgcweightrating:bus=none @ public_transport There is no issue #2, no modification needed, the use-values already work. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
On 1/13/14 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: psv reads public service vehicle, clearly a use type. e.g. busses is correct as is i.e. busses and taxis (but the latter might forget some other kind of psv). Still this clearly doesn't include any buses (vehicle class, usually vehicles with more than 8+1 seats) but only those that are in public service. cheers, Martin we may need to spend some time on this. the turn restriction plugin for josm uses psv, but seemingly with the implication of emergency/service vehicles (not including buses and taxis) for things like u-turns on motorways. i think we need some clarity about what psv actually means. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/13 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net we may need to spend some time on this. the turn restriction plugin for josm uses psv, but seemingly with the implication of emergency/service vehicles (not including buses and taxis) for things like u-turns on motorways. i think we need some clarity about what psv actually means. I started mapping in Jan 2008. By that time it was already clear that psv was taxis and buses. If we start questioning every consensus (even those documented on central pages of the wiki like the access-page) we can stop mapping now ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
On 1/13/14 2:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/13 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net we may need to spend some time on this. the turn restriction plugin for josm uses psv, but seemingly with the implication of emergency/service vehicles (not including buses and taxis) for things like u-turns on motorways. i think we need some clarity about what psv actually means. I started mapping in Jan 2008. By that time it was already clear that psv was taxis and buses. If we start questioning every consensus (even those documented on central pages of the wiki like the access-page) we can stop mapping now ;-) well, sure, but maybe someone should get the josm turn restriction plugin better documented (at least)? because misleading tagging is resulting. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
Obvious issue: 200,000 uses of bus... OK, probably most of them are associated with public_transport (e.g. bus stops). So the number of bus related access-restrictions is probably much lower. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
I started mapping in Jan 2008. By that time it was already clear that psv was taxis and buses. If we start questioning every consensus (even those documented on central pages of the wiki like the access-page) we can stop mapping now ;-) I have interpreted psv (public service VEHICLE), bus and taxi as vehicle categories in the past, but never required these keys in my area. So for me an empty taxi is allowed on taxi=yes. There are two issues, nobody has probably paid attention on so far: 1) public service is not public transport, as intended by the creators of the key. So if people make a road cleaning truck or an ambulance a PSV, then this was maybe not intended, but a result of ambiguous documentation/naming. 2) Taxi is actually not really a means of public transport (maybe disputed, I am sure several definitions of PT exist). The inclusion of taxi supports the misunderstanding that the psv key means a broad range of public service vehicles (road cleaning, etc.). -- Not sure if we can fix this misunderstanding (turn restriction plug-in) retrospectively in our database. Probably psv is broken now. But I do not see any real need for it. It is just coincidental that taxis can use bus lanes in some countries, I do not see the need to create a hierarchy just for this purpose. We can tag it with taxi and bus separately, PSV (or PTV) is a rather artificial group. -- Also the approach to mix use (public service/transport) with vehicle type was probably not the best choice back in the early days. It created the weird issue of requiring a new category for buses not used for public transport, since orthogonal use and type cannot be freely combined. For my suggestion to use key/value for category/use, e.g. bus=yes (any registered bus), bus=public_transport (only buses used for public_transport) [see other post] it is probably too late, even though the use of bus as access-key (and not as public_transport key) might be limited. Better backward compatibility I refine my proposal in the other post a little bit: 1) Update key hierarchy: + omnibus Vehicle registered as bus +++ busOmnibus vehicle, used for public transport at point of access 2) Introduce value public_transport omnibus=no bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport 3) Depreciatepsv (or broaden the meaning to all public service vehicles) 4) Depreciate tourist_bus: There is no longer the need for tagging both (bus=yes and tourist_bus=yes) in the case any bus category is meant. It can be expressed by omnibus=yes now. martinq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/9 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com 2014/1/9 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes section to the section by use, because that's what it is. I agree. (Usage, that relies on the current hierarchy should be limited to non-existent) As there has been nobody against it and it seems logical, I went on, this is the link to the change: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccessdiff=980850oldid=979558 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes section to the section by use, because that's what it is. page for reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to by use
2014/1/9 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I propose to move psv (including taxi and bus) from the vehicle classes section to the section by use, because that's what it is. I agree. (Usage, that relies on the current hierarchy should be limited to non-existent) And maybe it is time to think again about some larger clean up of the access tags. There are already some proposals available if I remember correct. I just say maybe! Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
