For the record, I responded to Marc Marc’s comment on this list, and there was not a response back:
“ On 2/20/20, marc marc<marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having >> to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to >> define one very common, unique feature? > > did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combination > of the same service ? > if yes, we need a lot of them > amenity=foot_taxi > amenity=moto_taxi > amenity=sidecar_taxi > amenity=taxi_low_local_pollution > amenity=taxi_powered_by_renewable_energy etc. > but all of these are part of the same type of service, > regardless of the number of wheels and the driving force. Not all of these actually are in real-world use. The only 4 options in common use today are: 1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi) 2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi) 3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized 4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclosed (could be amenity=taxi or perhaps amenity=autorickshaw - but these are not common where I live, though I know they are common in Thailand, India and some other countries). There used to be human-pulled rickshaws, but these no longer exist. They were take over by pedicabs / aka bicycle rickshaws, since those are much more efficient. I will consider proposing the other 2 tags later, but motorcyle taxis are by far the most common. I would bet there are more "ojek" stands in Indonesia than taxi stands in all of Europe.” https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051233.html — Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:47 AM Marc M. <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > If these arguments were given beforehand > > except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC > (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion > of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that > the answer was "you didn't understand". > > I would have liked to understand why I was wrong, but I have the > impression that this was not the goal of this rfc which is a mistake for > the quality (and it is not the first proposal that fails for lack of > quality either in the tag, either in the explanation of why this tag) > > Regards, > Marc > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
