[Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to "by use"

[martinq]

>     I have interpreted psv (public service VEHICLE), bus and taxi as
>     vehicle categories in the past, but never required these keys in my
>     area.
>     So for me an empty taxi is allowed on taxi=yes.
> it is not a question whether it is empty or not (it might be going to
> pick up someone) but whether it is in service.

"in service" was (and is) not required by the definition & description 
of the "psv" tag or the "taxi". Only in "bus" it was mixed in ("acting 
as a public service").

There is no way to tag "taxi in service" so far in OSM, only "taxi" (as 
a car category).

So I do not agree that "taxi" and "psv" belong to the "by-use" group.

I strongly suggest to move "psv", "bus" and "taxi" back to the original 
place in the wiki!

>     There are two issues, nobody has probably paid attention on so far:
>     1) "public service" is not "public transport", as intended by the
>     creators of the key. So if people make a road cleaning truck or an
>     ambulance a PSV, then this was maybe not intended, but a result of
>     ambiguous documentation/naming.
> if you look at wikipedia for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSV
> this get's redirected to bus, so my guess is, that the common usage of
> this term is the same than the definition in OSM and not including all
> kind of "public" vehicles.

Most mappers are not native English speakers. We can only guess what 
they really understand and have understood. But I don't think it is an 
intuitive tag.

The source of defining psv as bus+taxi (taxi as "public service" is 
questionable by the way) is probably UK: 
https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences

But that does not make the tags intuitive. Non-intuitive tags sadly 
don't work well, no matter how good the wiki-documentation is...

>     2) Introduce value "public_transport"
>     omnibus=no & bus=yes can also be expressed as omnibus=public_transport
> IMHO we can stick to psv.

not clear to me. psv for what?

Separating "bus" as vehicle category from "by-use" - and putting it into 
a value like - is not just more consistent: It is more flexible (I can 
distinguish between taxi in service and any taxi the same way), it 
easier to understand what omnibus=public_transport means, compared to 
the current "bus=yes".

      3) Depreciate"psv" (or broaden the meaning to all "public service"
> because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that
> plugin?

no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this 
artificial group: Grouping taxi (both "in service" as well as not in 
service) with only those buses acting as public transport. Taxi access 
and bus access are distinct things. No ambiguous, poorly understood 
(here the poor plug-in just confirms that PSV is not well-understood) 
short-cut like "psv" is needed. If taxi and bus can access, why not 
bus=* & taxi=*?

>     4) Depreciate "tourist_bus": There is no longer the need for tagging
>     both ("bus=yes" and "tourist_bus=yes") in the case any bus category
>     is meant. It can be expressed by "omnibus=yes" now.
> not sure. I introduced this key because of a sign that said explicitly:
> "tourist_bus=no".

OK, didn't know the history about a sign.

I thought it was introduced because "bus" was not covering all buses: 
Without tourist_bus it is impossible to tag that no buses are allowed. 
bus=no is not sufficient, because it was restricted to "acting as public 
transport".

In the current schema accurate mappers must map 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vorschriftszeichen_7f.svg as 
bus=no *and* as tourist_bus=no. I would bet many mappers haven't done 
this, because "bus" is misunderstood.

By the way:
The key name "tourist_bus" is also non-intuitive, not every non-public 
transport bus is a "tourist bus".

martinq