[Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年5月9日週六 20:35，François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> 寫道：

> Hi Paul,
>
> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 02:29, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>> This isn't just about optimizing the number of tags used, it's about
>> aligning with
>> how most people's mental models work.  And not just the mental models
>> of local mappers but also the mental models of tourists: locals don't
>> refer
>> to maps as often as tourists do.
>>
>
> Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi
> service they can use.
> Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of
> Google Maps data model when browsing it?
> Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes
> tagging less important to master to contribute.
>

> Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi +
> vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex.
> Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we
> have something to do with several keys.
>

What you said doesn't make sense.
The existence of a space within the word doesn't inherently make them
separateable.
Like for the tag amenity=charging_station, do you think the space mean ot
make sense to change the tagging scheme into amenity=station +
station=charging ?



> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 06:38, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> taxi=* is already used as an access tag, so I think taxi:type=* should
>> be considered instead. Perhaps amenity=taxi can default to motorcar if
>> there is no taxi:type=* tag.
>>
>
> Beware of :type disadvantages.
> Things like vehicle=* sounds better (or another word referring to vehicle
> used).
>
> Default to motorcar can lead to mistakes for consumers.
> It's more valuable to consider vehicle unknown if absent (and encourage
> mappers to explicitly define it)
>

And that make the tag valueless as that cannot actually indicate what exact
type of place the tag was indicating.


> Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 08:01, Phake Nick <c933103 at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>> "I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle" is something
>> that would also be true for any other public transit vehicles.
>>
>
> I respectably disagree regarding public transit: you're not asking them to
> take you where YOU want but if they actually go where THEY told us they
> will.
> Every word counts here.
>

Your interpretation on public transit service is incorrect.
When you board a plane from London to Paris, you didn't fly to Paris
because they told us they would fly to Paris. You're going to Paris because
you have expressed interest in going to Paris. Same with rideshareing or
other rented mobility services.


>
>> Motorcycle taxi is different from 4-wheeled taxi because they provide a
>> different experience with different speed, charge different fare, have
>> different level of convenience, can access different area, and various
>> other factors.
>>
>
> We agree on that particular point.
> Neverthess that doesn't make a second value of amentiy legit.
> OSM would only have one key grouping all possible values if it was
> relevant.
>

I am not aware of such requirement on value ever existing in OSM.


>
>
>> In addition to them being different kind of services, for the purpose of
>> openstreetmap tagging, it's better to remember that a motorcycle taxi stand
>> would look quite different from a taxi stand, use the streetspace
>> differently, and thus mixing them together would also hurt any downstream
>> data user who might wish to understand the situation of 4-wheeled taxi
>> penetration in certain geographical area due to conflating the data with
>> others that aren't of the same type. They're often regulated by different
>> laws and face different operational restrictions also.
>>
>
> That could eventually be a point if all those differences were known
> precisely and described.
> There are many many kind of public transit stations but we're still
> calling them stations and platforms.
>

That would be a big departure from the way how these features are currently
tagged within OSM.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200510/00af0083/attachment-0001.htm>