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 mass manual edit.
As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public
projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it
myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system
without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?
>From the east coast main line,
On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill" <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:
> 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 past, for example
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
> On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>> 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 tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I
>> don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I
>> haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either
>> way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had
>> last month according to a different thread today. And the whole purpose of
>> me asking was, anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this
>> unusual way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found
>> me doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com <mailto:
>>> davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>>>> On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds <
>>>> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> 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.
> Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB mailing list