[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access
ilya at zverev.info
Wed Nov 11 15:13:08 UTC 2020
Regarding the private_hire, I’m not so sure. We indeed you English spelling for tags (colour, neighbourhood), and that’s okay since it’s consistent. But when instead of just spelling we use a UK-specific legal term, it might be not understood. For example, see village_green.
My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber, Lyft, Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles using “Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia.
Even in UK, "ride-sharing" is a common term when addressing these companies, e.g. on the BBC and Evening Standard websites. It can be found much more often than "private hire”.
On the other hand, in London drivers of these cars need to have “private hire” licenses. We’re discussing access restriction, and these are for cars/drivers, not for companies. In London specifically this term might be more correct. In any other place the probability of finding a “ride share vehicles” restriction is higher than for “private hire vehicles”.
So when I see rideshare=designated, as a person living outside England, I can immediately understand what that means. For private_hire I would need to refer to wikipedia or google the term. Wikipedia, of course, uses “Ride-sharing” for these companies as well, and not once mentions “private hire” in the article.
My vote is for “rideshare”, although I’m not invested in any of the terms, provided we agree on something and then can map access restrictions that have been on the ground for years.
> On 31 Oct 2020, at 20:57, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's almost never standard to use access=bus or access=taxi, it's bus=yes/no/designated + taxi=yes/no/designated added to another feature like a highway=* or amenity=parking
> I agree with the idea of using private_hire=* instead of rideshare=* because this appears to be a proper British English term for any non-taxi, privately arranged transport vehicle, and it's not as misleading as "rideshare" when used on services like Uber and Lyft. Though I would like to see more British folks weigh in on the correct terminology.
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#Private_hire_(minicabs) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#Private_hire_(minicabs)>
> -- Joseph EIsenberg
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:51 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com <mailto:zelonewolf at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Actually I quite like "private_hire" as an access value.
> Are you suggesting access=private_hire as a tag? That would not be consistent with how taxi services are tagged. We don't use access=taxi, we use amenity=taxi + taxi=*. By that logic, the access tagging should use private_hire=*, and probably with some value of amenity=.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging