From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Usage of passengers

Once again OSM showed some excellent planning and rigorous thinking when choosing tag keys and values. :P 1. passengers are not considered cargo, 2. the plural is only used for passengers but not other types, 3. using 'foot' instead would better match our other ways to indicate "bare human" . To be fair, I cannot come up with a better key and reading cargo=foot is a bit macabre but the dichotomy of singular/plural is just stupid. There aren't that many values (nor instances) in the database and I presume the values aren't that often used in applications yet either. Some of the currently documented values are in the JOSM default preset (but that needs a change for additional values anyway and I volunteer to fix that). I propose to deprecate the values in plural, i.e., passengers. Using plurals seems more natural but does not follow access=* values (but there are reasons to not simply mimic that here too so I'd be fine with either). If we change it anyway we could use foot instead of passengers too. --Stefanct (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ROFL "Once again OSM showed some excellent planning and rigorous thinking when choosing tag keys and values" made my day :-D. I would anyway go a bit further and not only document the "singular/plural" topic centrally, but also other "syntax" principles, as there is really a mess or more euphemistic a "grown structure". Unfortunately there are some elements within "OSM" which seem to try to avoid any standardization. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I support that but I think here is not really the right place to discuss this. One additional point regarding "passengers": The capacity=* page states some interesting possible values in their namespace including capacity:persons. --Stefanct (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Probably we should discuss this more centrally, yes. But I don't think the mailing list is adequate. What would you suggest ? Regarding the "pure" spelling I'd propose a table of terms (kinda glossary). The other syntax ("categorization" / subtag principles to refine details) should be summarized on one page. My personal attempts to do this have been sabotaged by only three individuals so far. But as there should be far more interested in a clear description, it should be possible to achieve that. Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ohoh, I stepped into a wasps nests again ;) I'd suggest doing this in form of a proposal. Even though it does not directly propose some specific tagging the process itself seems quite suitable with a page showcasing the content of the proposal and an accompanying talk page that serves as a central reference point and can be linked in other discussions (e.g., MLs) with some coordinated approval at the end IMHO. If even that's disputed (I don't even see how somebody else could do that formally) you could always start a page in your own namespace and invite others to amend and discuss it. --Stefanct (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned there are only three "wasps" and they aren't really able to sting. I'm fine with a proposal, but it should cover the whole thing, not just "singular/plural" topics. And there should be a disclaimer which mentions NOT only to be "against" something, but to mention WHAT should be the alternative logic. There are too many wisenheimer participating without adding any value (at least they don't waste paper, but much potentially precious productive time). Please just begin a draft, then we may refine it. Rtfm Rtfm (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course random people don't get to dictate who participates in proposals or how. Comments like those are exactly why I said on your talk page that you have authoritarian tendencies you should keep in check if you want to get anywhere on this platform. Otherwise, my guess is that any proposal your involved in will (and should) be dead on arrival. Just like your half-baked other ones were. I'd love to see you do a legitimate proposal that doesn't involve sockpuppets or you trying to control and badger people involved in it though. My guess is that you don't have it in you. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)