[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

[Jez Nicholson]

As a Brit, I would say, "private hire vehicle (PHV)" for a minicab, Uber
etc.

'vehicle' not meaning only motorised.


On Sat, 31 Oct 2020, 18:00 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)
>
> -- Joseph EIsenberg
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 10:51 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <
> 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
>> https://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/20201031/9e1bb979/attachment-0001.htm>