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 <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> 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 <sk53....@gmail.com> 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 <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>
> 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" <
>> 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 <stu...@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
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Reply via email to