This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.


Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
<<>> wrote:


Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Talk-GB mailing list<>

Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to