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, ClareOn Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:41 AM nathan case <nathanc...@outlook.com <mailto:nathanc...@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.eisenb...@gmail.com <mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:32 AM *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@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 <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@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@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 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access> Discussion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Rideshare_Access <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 list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
