[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

On 11.11.19 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec 
> like a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on 
> the contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If 
> there are differences, we should have a key for every class that makes a 
> difference (this is how we usually do it with access-tags).

I agree that we should not use this as an additional access tag, in 
cases where there is no difference to a regular bicycle.
But a tag like this is needed in combination with shops and amenities. 
The proposal aims not only at access tags, but also at all the other 
usages of "vehicle type" tags - and when it comes to shops and workshops 
there is a real difference. Not every place sells and services all kinds.


> we do not need to add those "electric" to any of these classes as long 
> as it doesn't matter for the access restriction whether the motor is 
> combustion or electrical. 
Traffic laws do already distinguish between electrical and other 
vehicles. We have to be able to map this difference. But this is not 
part of my current proposal.


> it doesn't help if a tag is in widespread use when the meaning is 
> unclear. IMHO we should discourage the term even if it is widely used.
Agreed. But we can't discourage this tag if we don't have a better one 
to replace it.


Jan