[Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 13:35, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi
> service they can use.
>

But the query tool is there.  Or are you proposing banning tourists from
using it?
That would be possible - login required to use the query tool.  Or login
required to
use the map.  But the map is only primarily there for mappers, other uses
are
encouraged.

And before the choir sings a chorus of "standard carto is for mappers, not
users"
and "different renderers may do things differently" they're right.
Different renderers
may also expose all the gory details of raw tags without prettying them up.

Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of
> Google Maps data model when browsing it?
>

I'm aware of some of its limitations.  Otherwise I wouldn't be here. :)

Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes
> tagging less important to master to contribute.
>

A lot of things can be hidden by renderers and editor presets.  But the
query tool
is still there.  As is overpass turbo.  And there are a lot of things I
need to add as
raw tags because the editor I use most has decided that things I add
frequently
to certain types of POI aren't things that anybody wants to add.  It makes
life
easier for newbies who may not be interested in nuances but it makes life
harder
for experienced mappers who do.  It is even harder when I have to keep
looking
things up in the documentation because the tagging isn't very meaningful.

Unless there are good reasons not to for specific cases, we should strive to
make the semantics of tags meaningful.  It would be possible to have tags
like K9842=V2179 provided ALL renderer query tools, editors, overpass
turboi,
etc. did the appropriate translations.  It would be a real pain when you
needed
to add a raw tag, but it would be feasible.  But we'd never get all tools to
do the translations, so making things meaningful is necessary.  We just
can't agree on what is meaningful because we're have different mental
models.

>
> Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi +
> vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex.
>

Nope, it doesn't sound that complex.  Yet the discussion goes on and on,
because
some people dislike amenity=taxi + vehicle=* and prefer amenity=*.

Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we
> have something to do with several keys.
>

It could mean that if everyone had the same mental model you do.  We're not
all
strict taxonomists.  Or even strict taxi-ists.  As somebody else pointed
out, if
vehicles with a driver for hire are all taxis, then why do we have buses?
Very
few people class taxi and bus identically.  And even fewer put chartered
aircraft in the same class.  Many see ojeks and taxis the same way they see
buses and taxis - different things, not variants of the same thing.

In everyday life, most people don't think in a taxonomic way.  They see
instances, not classes.  Push them to categorize things and they will
agree that a chair is a type of seat, and a seat is a type of furniture, but
most of them see a chair and think "chair."  And if you do persuade
somebody to think taxonomically, the hierarchy he or she uses may or
may not be the same one you do: that chair is made of wood, as is that
table - they're both wooden. not they're both furniture.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200509/cf8e6c5e/attachment.htm>