I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

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 users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the data.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds <> wrote:

    Greetings all!

    In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
    with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
    expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
    (to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
    checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
    contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

    There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
    propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
    concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
    anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.

    Stuart Reynolds
    for traveline south east & anglia


    Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to