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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014/1/15 martinq <osm-martinq at fantasymail.de>

> "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").
>


"in service" is implicit in "public service vehicle", because if they are
not in service they are not psv. For taxi I am not sure, I don't know
whether a taxi is a taxi when the driver is not working, but my guess is it
is not. Maybe someone has more references to clear this up.



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


is there really a "taxi" vehicle category? I am aware that the vehicle has
certain requisites e.g. in Germany in order to be able to work as taxi, but
I am not sure if it is a taxi also off duty.




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


OK, if you get more we have to think about how this can be handled (e.g.
voting?)



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


for bus there shouldn't be space for discussion, as the definition is
explicit for a long time.




>
> 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.
>


I think that people that are not native speakers are less of a problem, as
they won't have an idea about the meaning of a cryptic abbreviation prior
to looking it up in the wiki, while people speaking English but not UK
English as their mothertongue are more at risk of understanding something
else (and not looking the definition up in the wiki).

I do agree that it is not an intuitive tag (but it saves us lots of bytes
in the db ;-) ), and it is a very old tag and quite used.



     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?



as generic term for buses and taxis. I agree that creating a new vehicle
class "omnibus" is also appealing, and there are currently 0 uses of this
key so it might work out.


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".
>


+1


     3) Depreciate"psv" (or broaden the meaning to all "public service"

> because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that
> plugin?
>


"broaden" the usage will probably not get a majority, but we can see. Not
sure if this is needed anyway.

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=*?
>


you mean "omnibus" rather than bus, no? +1


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



well, as this doesn't seem to be well defined outside of OSM we can use
what we think is OK, currently the definition is "a bus not acting as a
public service vehicle"

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140116/e9dc07c9/attachment.html>