Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
Am 25.05.2020 um 01:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > .. > (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging access=yes > (2) there is a good and simpler replacement > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
May 25, 2020, 15:04 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: >> >>> Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its >>> constituent vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform >>> definition? A problematic example is "psv" where its status is not simply a >>> function of the vehicle's construction or taxation class, but also of the >>> use to which it is being put. If a taxi driver takes his taxi on holiday? A >>> bus running empty back to the depot? >>> >> >> And that is why psv is useful. Lets say that in given territory it applies >> to bus on route with public >> and scheduled traffic and it does not apply to bus running service that is >> not accessible to public. >> > > Is meaning of psv=* territory dependent? I don't get that impression > from the wiki, and was under the impression it was to include taxis > worldwide. Please tell me if I had that wrong. > I though that the point of that tag was that it follows local legislation. So if I have signs "public services vehicles are allowed" or "pojazdy transportu bublicznego" and government will change what counts as "public service vehicle" (fox example - minimum number of seats / includes excludes horse-drawn carriages, excludes taxi vehicles that are not passing pollution requirements...) there is no need to retweak bizarrely complicated conditional restrictions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: >> Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its constituent >> vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform definition? >> A problematic example is "psv" where its status is not simply a function of >> the vehicle's construction or taxation class, but also of the use to which >> it is being put. If a taxi driver takes his taxi on holiday? A bus running >> empty back to the depot? > > And that is why psv is useful. Lets say that in given territory it applies to > bus on route with public > and scheduled traffic and it does not apply to bus running service that is > not accessible to public. Is meaning of psv=* territory dependent? I don't get that impression from the wiki, and was under the impression it was to include taxis worldwide. Please tell me if I had that wrong. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its constituent > vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform definition? A > problematic example is "psv" where its status is not simply a function of the > vehicle's construction or taxation class, but also of the use to which it is > being put. If a taxi driver takes his taxi on holiday? A bus running empty > back to the depot? > > And that is why psv is useful. Lets say that in given territory it applies to bus on route with public and scheduled traffic and it does not apply to bus running service that is not accessible to public. It is impossible to tag such difference using vehicle class tags. Similarly, if one see "public service vehicles allowed" (or in Poland "nie dotyczy pojazdów transportu publicznego") psv allows one to tag it without detailed knowledge how to create massive complicated restriction that would use conditional syntax. > This is going to depend on the specific jurisdiction. > Yes, routers need some are-relevant info and ask user to provide routing matching law. > How we word the definition of the OSM tag is of major importance if we are > to avoid endless arguments about these edge cases. > +1 - that is main benefit of proposal process, you may avoid this before tags gets popular ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
On 2020-05-25 10:39, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:48:20AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> Wrong tagging is not interesting by itself. >> >> I was looking for real-world situation where >> >> (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging >> (2) there is a good and simpler replacement > > The classic case is that people to not use "vehicle" or "motor_vehicle" > but tag all individual subtypes individually, sometimes even > with their parent. > > So there is no need for > > motorcycle=destination > goods=destination > hgv=destination > car=destination > mofa=destination > > When there is a "motor_vehicle=destination" Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its constituent vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform definition? A problematic example is "psv" where its status is not simply a function of the vehicle's construction or taxation class, but also of the use to which it is being put. If a taxi driver takes his taxi on holiday? A bus running empty back to the depot? This is going to depend on the specific jurisdiction. How we word the definition of the OSM tag is of major importance if we are to avoid endless arguments about these edge cases. Interesting fact: in NL, speed limits don't apply to cyclists, because the law says that speed limits are for motor vehicles. Is an eBike a "motor vehicle"? Do we need "maxspeed:cycle=none"? BTW this is rhetorical - just mentioning it here to illustrate how easily we can project our own bit of the world onto the whole planet and assume it's the same for everyone.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:48:20AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > Wrong tagging is not interesting by itself. > > I was looking for real-world situation where > > (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging > (2) there is a good and simpler replacement The classic case is that people to not use "vehicle" or "motor_vehicle" but tag all individual subtypes individually, sometimes even with their parent. So there is no need for motorcycle=destination goods=destination hgv=destination car=destination mofa=destination When there is a "motor_vehicle=destination" Some mappers live under the impression that the more they tag the better. So it is important to tell them to match the best and most exact scope of the signage. Most signs just exclude all vehicles or all motor_vehicles. So no needs to list them individually. We have a tag for that. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
