Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Is there a distinction between PSV and "local buses only". I heard a saga about a heritage bus where driver had PSV Licence in a bus lane. Can't remember details. ( Reply all this time!) On 15 Oct 2016 16:26, "Philip Barnes" wrote: > On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:38 +,

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Isn't bus just a hyponym of PSV anyway? PSV also includes taxis, just like motor_vehicle includes car. On 2016-10-14 17:33, SK53 wrote: > That's a long time ago. This is not really something I map very much at all, > so I would tend to have to look for a convenient example. I assume that's >

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

That's a long time ago. This is not really something I map very much at all, so I would tend to have to look for a convenient example. I assume that's what happened in this case & of course I would look somewhere I know like Nottingham. You are very free to change that to psv! On that note I

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

>> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain user SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231). But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, found them both to be edited by

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Rob Nickerson wrote: > I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers It is indeed easy. There are 442,133 instances of foot=* in the UK and 748 of access:foot=*. That makes it a nice easy decision for the data consumer not to bother supporting access:foot. ;) cheers Richard -- View this

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone actually talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be changed. By discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used the tag; b) persuade him to use psv=yes. The dual use of foot=yes &

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

This is the downside of the free tagging system! It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an error in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these tags?!). But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit then one individual can

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

This has opened something of a can of worms. I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number of access:foot

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Hi Rob, I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will take a look later. Regards Stuart Sent from my iPhone On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson > wrote: Stuart, Putting

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote: I agree with what Chris says. I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper

[Talk-GB] access:psv

Stuart, Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Most of Chris's blog appears irrelevant to this case. The cemetery/graveyard example isn't applicable. There's no "variations", "differences" or "flattening out the data into a monotonous grey". If you have 2 tags: X1 & X2 that represent the same object, & the data user checks for both

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

I agree with what Chris says. I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

On 13-Oct-16 18:51, Chris Hill wrote: I have written about this process more than once in the past, for example http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html I agree with this... any formal tagging schema is going to end up obstructing useful mapping of circumstances

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed as you see fit and so will I. I have written about this process more than once in the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Dan, I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being practical. If a data consumer needs to edit the data rather than incorporate the options into their data handling stream they are making their process vulnerable to anyone's edits. If Stuart edits access:psv=* to psv=* his process will work, until someone

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Chris, I think that's a bit too dogmatic, if you don't mind me saying. It seems to imply nothing should ever be tweaked, e.g. spelling mistakes. It's entirely possible that the key in question was a simple misremember rather than a deliberate choice. There have been many larger mechanical edits

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

Stuart I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham) Compared with 77857 for psv=* Chris If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences. If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as clearly more