[Talk-GB] access:psv

Fri Oct 14 14:49:42 UTC 2016

>> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person

Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain user SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231).

But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, found them both to be edited by different people, and decided at that point to await any decision from this discussion before approaching individual users as I didn’t know how many there were. But if, as you say, kevjs1982 is responsible for the majority then I will approach him.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com<mailto:sk53.osm at gmail.com>> wrote:

AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone actually talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be changed. By discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used the tag; b) persuade him to use psv=yes.

The dual use of foot=yes & access;foot=yes probably has its origins in disagreements about tagging PRoW in Hampshire a while back: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales.

Jerry

On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>> wrote:

This is the downside of the free tagging system!

It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an error in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these tags?!).

But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit then one individual can block it.

A compromise is to adjust the code to accept both and have validation on cases where both tags are present.

I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers but in reality it is not "easy" because it's taken you years to discover this edge case (consumers shouldn't have to spend hours digging around the intricacies of such basic data).

Rob

On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:
This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161014/be00e9aa/attachment.html>