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
