That's a long time ago. This is not really something I map very much at all, so I would tend to have to look for a convenient example. I assume that's what happened in this case & of course I would look somewhere I know like Nottingham.
You are very free to change that to psv! On that note I see that bus is actually used more than psv according to taginfo, so 2 values have to be dealt with anyway. Jerry On 14 October 2016 at 15:49, Stuart Reynolds < [email protected]> wrote: > >> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person > > Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain > user SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231). > > But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, > found them both to be edited by different people, and decided at that point > to await any decision from this discussion before approaching individual > users as I didn’t know how many there were. But if, as you say, kevjs1982 > is responsible for the majority then I will approach him. > > Regards, > Stuart Reynolds > for traveline south east & anglia > > > > On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > > AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone > actually talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be > changed. By discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used > the tag; b) persuade him to use psv=yes. > > The dual use of foot=yes & access;foot=yes probably has its origins in > disagreements about tagging PRoW in Hampshire a while back: > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales. > > Jerry > > > On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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" < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >>> .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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
