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) Depreciate"psv" (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
