That was my understanding, yes. PSV is a wider-ranging mode than just bus.

Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 14 Oct 2016, at 16:43, Colin Smale 
<<>> wrote:

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.


On 14 October 2016 at 15:49, Stuart Reynolds 
>> 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 ;) (

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.

Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 <<>> 

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:


On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson 
<<>> 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 


On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" 
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<>

Talk-GB mailing list<>
Talk-GB mailing list<>

Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to