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) Depreciate"psv" (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 [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
