[Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you 
added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my 
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed 
as you see fit and so will I.

I have written about this process more than once in the past, for 
example 
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two 
> of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought 
> to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight
>
> Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I 
> feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. 
> But I don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is 
> undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 
> different users. But either way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 
> contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
> different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, 
> anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual 
> way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found me 
> doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com 
>> <mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Stuart
>> I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
>> Compared with 77857 for psv=*
>>
>> Chris
>> If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
>> If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. 
>> If there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are 
>> expecting psv=*
>>
>> If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no 
>> harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate 
>> the data.
>>
>> DaveF.
>>
>>
>> On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
>>> Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data 
>>> consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you 
>>> edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a 
>>> disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.
>>>
>>> Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not 
>>> hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to 
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>>>
>>> On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
>>> <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Greetings all!
>>>
>>>     In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
>>>     with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
>>>     expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
>>>     (to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
>>>     checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
>>>     contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.
>>>
>>>     There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
>>>     propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
>>>     concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
>>>     anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.
>>>