This is the downside of the free tagging system!

It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an
error in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these
tags?!).

But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit
then one individual can block it.

A compromise is to adjust the code to accept both and have validation on
cases where both tags are present.

I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers but in reality it is not
"easy" because it's taken you years to discover this edge case (consumers
shouldn't have to spend hours digging around the intricacies of such basic
data).

Rob

On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds <stuart@travelinesoutheast.
> org.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stuart,
>
> 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,
> *Rob*
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Reply via email to