[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

Sat Oct 31 14:23:59 UTC 2020

In the United States at least, there is a very real difference in meaning
between "rideshare" and "taxi" services when it comes *specifically* to
access at airports.  And I believe that is the intent of this proposal: how
do I tag the special area in the airport where I must go in order to be
picked up by XYZ rideshare company?

At an airport, if you wish to take a taxi, you walk up to a taxi stand
(amenity=taxi), where the taxi cabs line up, and you take the first taxi
cab in line.  This is an explicit area where only taxis queue up.

Alternately, if you wish to take a "ride share", you are using an app to
make an arrangement with a specific vehicle and driver to be picked up at a
specific location.  In this case, airports often (at this point, probably
"usually") have a specified location where such ride shares are allowed to
pick up and/or drop off passengers.

In some cases, the ride share pickup/drop-off locations have specific areas
that are different for different ride share providers.  For example, at my
local airport, due to disagreements about how much these companies should
pay the airport for curb access (really), there is one location where you
can pick up a Lyft, and a separate location 100 meters away off the airport
property where you can pick up an Uber!

The point here is that in the US there is a very real distinction between
these two classes of objects, and the information someone traveling through
the airport looking for ground transportation would want to know is:
1. Is it a ride share (pre-arranged pickup) or taxi stand (on-demand pickup)
2. Is it limited to only specific ride share companies?
3. Is it pickup only, dropoff only, or both?

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 6:36 AM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> For starters I would oppose using the term "rideshare" for what is a
> taxi/chauffeur service. It should be noted that there are actual rideshare
> organisations and services out there, but uber, grab, lyft etc. are not
> among them, they are simply trying to co-opt a term with positive
> associations for their operations.
>
> Further, real rideshare services don't get special access treatment
> anywhere I know of, outside of vehicle occupancy regulations, which isn't
> surprising as real ride sharing simply involves sharing costs and car on a
> trip that the driver was going to make anyway.
>
> If there are actual legal differences between taxi and chauffeur access
> somewhere, we could use chauffeur or chauffeur-driven as an access tag
> (better suggestions welcome).
>
> Simon
> Am 30.10.2020 um 19:42 schrieb Clare Corthell via Tagging:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for the input and feedback thus far, any outstanding commentary
> is welcome. Amendments to the proposal include a definition of rideshare,
> example companies, and comment responses on the Discussion page. In-line
> comments here.
>
> Anyone who would like to comment or bring up outstanding questions, please
> do so for another week. At the end of next week, this proposal could move
> to voting.
>
> Best,
> Clare
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:41 AM nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Clare: this is a good discussion to have.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems as though the emergence of rideshare services is still being
>> addressed at various legal levels but, at least in the UK, rideshare
>> vehicles are not classed taxis and so are not ordinarily entitled to use
>> bus/taxi lanes. If situations exist where rideshares are specifically
>> allowed (or not), and that access is distinct from taxi or a regular
>> motor_vehicle, then a key should exist to denote that. I note that the
>> proposal has been updated to reflect such cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Joseph Eisenberg: But you will also need to add a definition of a
>> "rideshare vehicle", since this will need to be translated for places where
>> Lyft and Uber do not operate, and where English is not used (e.g.
>> Indonesia). Unfortunately I don't see a good online source for a definition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps such definitions are dependent upon local/national legislation.
>> In your follow on examples, do those services enjoy the same access rights
>> as PSVs? If yes, then perhaps they should simply be covered by that tag? If
>> they do not, do they have any additional or fewer access rights than simply
>> motor_vehicle/cycle? If not, then perhaps they should simply be covered by
>> those respective tags?
>>
>
> The legal designation could derive from venue/airport, local, county,
> state, or federal law. Just as u-turns are always technically legal in
> California unless prohibited, while in Washington they are prohibited
> unless permitted, there are local laws that are required to fully
> contextualize map data but are not represented within it. I don't foresee
> rideshare being default prohibited, so perhaps the example is too extreme,
> but nevertheless the goal is to encode the specific implications of local
> law for a given rideshare vehicle rather than law generally.
>
>
>>
>>
>> So a definition could be something along the lines of: “A private hire
>> vehicle, often booked through an online service or a mobile application,
>> that does not enjoy the same legal standing as a taxi service. Exact
>> definition may depend on local law but usually denotes services such as
>> Uber and Lyft.”
>>
>>
>>
>> A taxi that also takes bookings/collects fares via an app is still a
>> taxi, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:32 AM
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access
>>
>>
>>
>> Clare,
>>
>>
>>
>> The "proposal" section currently fails to include the actual proposal:
>> that is, what new key and tags are you proposing to use?
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks like the proposal is: "approve the use of the new key
>> "rideshare=" with values "yes" and "no" to specify legal access for
>> rideshare vehicles."
>>
> For the possible values, the expectation is that these include typical
> values
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values>
> for other vehicle access, such as {yes, no, designated, local,
> destination}. We typically encounter cases where the first two values are
> useful, as noted in the proposal. Cases of "designated" or "destination"
> access for rideshare vehicles are both plausible and possible. Possible
> keys are indicated in the existing Access page.
>
>
>> But you will also need to add a definition of a "rideshare vehicle",
>> since this will need to be translated for places where Lyft and Uber do not
>> operate, and where English is not used (e.g. Indonesia). Unfortunately I
>> don't see a good online source for a definition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is a Gojek motorcycle a rideshare vehicle? See
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojek
>>
>> What about pedicabs (tricycles) which are hailed with a smartphone app?
>>
>> Or should only passenger cars be included?
>>
>> What about taxis which also get fares via an app?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM Clare Corthell via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tagging List,
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the RFC for the proposal for rideshare vehicle access:
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposal:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
>>
>> Discussion:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This proposes the addition of rideshare as a use-based access mode for
>> land-based transportation. This would enable mapping restriction or
>> permission of rideshare vehicles to nodes and ways. As mentioned in the
>> proposal example cases
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access#Case_.231:_Denver_Airport>,
>> this typically arises in dense traffic patterns such as airport pickup
>> zones.
>>
>>
>>
>> This proposal originated from the experience of the Lyft mapping team
>> seeking to improve the accuracy of routes we build from an OSM-based map.
>> Because our rideshare operations are North America based, we bring a
>> perspective that centers the policy for right-of-way in this context. We
>> would especially appreciate feedback on the applicability of this tagging
>> to other parts of the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your commentary and feedback.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clare
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201031/6d8f02dd/attachment-0001.htm>