Isn't bus just a hyponym of PSV anyway? PSV also includes taxis, just
like motor_vehicle includes car.

On 2016-10-14 17:33, SK53 wrote:

> 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 [1]). 
> 
> 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 
> [2]. 
> 
> 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 [3] 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231
[2]
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
[4] 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