Proposal talk:Tag:amenity=motorcycle taxi

Do away with amenity=* altogehter.

amenity=taxi is a historic artifact. As suggested on http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-Tag-amenity-motorcycle-taxi-tp5958985p5958988.html, transitioning it to public_transport=*, or at least using public_transport=* for other kinds of "taxis" would avoid having to create a new amenity=* value (and potentially more in the future). Something in the manner of taxi:*=* like taxi:motorcyle=yes could work. The prefix would be important here. -- Kovposch (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Taxis are not public transportation in the usual sense, because they are hired by only one person at a time. This is especially true for motorcycles, which can carry only one person (legally, or perhaps 2 adults). They do not follow a route nor a schedule, unlike buses and trains. Amenity was chosen since amenity=taxi exists, as do amenity=parking, amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=motorcycle_parking - the idea is that "taxi" (implies motorcar) goes to motorcycle_taxi like "parking" (implies motorcar) becomes "motorcycle_parking" --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Public transport is not limited to regular fixed-route, fixed-schedule high-occupancy public mass transit. share_taxi=*, (public) personal rapid transit, for-hire paratransit bus-vehicles are all considered public transport. -- Kovposch (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

People in the USA and Latin America and Southeast Asia do not talk about taxis as public transit. Perhaps the term is different in your country? Public transit in Indonesia usually has a fixed route, but not a fixed schedule or high occupancy: it is mostly minibuses that seat no more than 12 people. From what I have seen, "share taxi" vehicles are simply minibus or jitney services, which function the same as a larger bus: they follow a fixed route between fixed terminals, but on an irregular schedule - these we map with highway=bus_stop in Indonesia, just like larger buses. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There are also many types of "motorcycle" taxis that would not be consdiered automobile taxis. Do we have a tag for tuk-tuks now? -- Kovposch (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not personally use this tag for tuk-tuks, which are also known as Auto Rickshaws, since those are 2-track vehicles with 3 wheels, and the passengers sit on a separate bench or 2 benches, in an enclosed area with a roof and windshield. I think we can discuss elsewhere if autorickshaws can be considered a type of motorcar (since they are 2-track motor vehicles with an enclosed passenger areas, like sedans, SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks used as tais), or if they deserve a unique tag for their stands. But I would like input from mappers in Africa, India, Thailand, Java and other places where these are more common (We don't have them on my island, though they are used in other parts of Indonesia) --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just that as an outsider, tuk-tuks seems as common, if not more than motorcycle taxis around the world. There are also trikes. So I was interested in the motivation behind proposing motorcycle taxis specically. I don't want to see this proposal immediately triggering the appearance of amenity=auto_rickshaw_taxi, and opening a path to all sorts of values coming through. -- Kovposch (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I proposed this tag because pangkalan ojek (motorcycle-taxi stands) are extremely common in Indonesia. A used motorcyle can cost less than $400, and there are no regulations enforced about operation of motorcycle taxis in villages, so there are motorcycle taxi stands in every neighborhood and village: I suspect over 100,000 and possibly >200,000 stands in this country alone (there are >80k villages), though very few are mapped yet. While autorickshaws are common in some other countries, they are more expensive to operate, and they are wider so they have more trouble on narrow streets (1.5 meters is common in villages and old cities) and they can't as easily sneak through gaps in traffic, so they are not as popular in most parts of Indonesia.

Re: "I don't want to see this proposal immediately triggering the appearance of amenity=auto_rickshaw_taxi, and opening a path to all sorts of values coming through". That's not how tagging works in Openstreetmap. Anyone can create new tags at any time, and there is no shortage of possible tags. According to taginfo there are already 6000 values of "amenity=" in use, though most are not documented. There is no reason to avoid adding new values of amenity, especially for a feature that is similar to an exiting tag which uses the key: in this case taxicab stands and ranks are tagged amenity=taxi, so it is logical the mappers would expect to find motorcycle taxi stands tagged in a similar way. But I won't be using anything for autorickshaw stands yet, until this is discussed by mappers in areas where they are more common. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between "anyone can create new tags at any time" and "I propose this tag to everyone". While the proposal system is not strict, it is intended to be discussed and refined. If you say "That's not how tagging works", would you say this wiki have zero influence? "Taxi" is a general concept with a specific common meaning, so I suggest we should use a more general approach to them, to leave amenity=taxi as is. -- 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain why we should "do away with amenity=* altogether" and why that should be discussed in this proposal? --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. You are proposing amenity=motorcycle_taxi for motorcycle taxis, and I'm saying why don't we use some other key-value to tag it. Is this not relevant? -- Kovposch (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to respond to the title of this section: "Do away with amenity=* altogehter." This sounds like you think the key amenity=* should be replaced altogether, or at least in the case of all types of taxicabs and other hired vehicles? Is that your position, or am I confused? --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The latter, but that depends on how you interpret have them "replaced". I would keep amenity=taxi, but as Taginfo shows there's not a lot of [code]=*_taxi[/code] uses to begin with, I won't incline towards adopting amenity=motorcycle_taxi. In a new start, they deserve a more general scheme. -- Kovposch (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semantically close to taxi

Thank you for your proposal. Based on the above discussion I would like to add: IMHO a moto-taxi is very similar to a cab. But using you proposal, makes it just as related to amenity=taxi as amenity=hospital. I would therefore prefer to formalise the current status which you want to improve.

Another option for me would be to use public_transport=* because in Germany taxis are PT by law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pbefg/__8.html Even if the proposal aims for the global south in e.g. West Africa moto-taxis are also seen as PT --MomoMilkiway (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

All tags in Openstreetmap are just strings of characters in a key and value format, but in this case amenity=taxi and amenity=motorcycle_taxi will share both the key "amenity" and the term "taxi" in the value, so it will be quite easy to select both together with a simple query, if this is sometimes needed by database users. The important thing is that the value is easy to understand and the definition in the wiki is clear.

Are there actually motorcycle taxis in Germany? The key public_transport=* is not usuallly added to amenity=taxi features, even though this was proposed. There are only 111 nodes with this combination (Overpass-turbo), or less than 0.3% - and that's not a surprise, because in most countries a taxicab is not treated as public transport. They are not shared and do not have a fixed route or fixed stops. In the USA and in Indonesia taxis are not allowed to use bus lanes or bus stops, nor do they accept public transport passes or fare cards. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Good!

Makes sense! How to tag for autorickshaw / tuk-tuk taxi stands though? Taginfo currently reports 155 results for auto_rickshaw and variants, 0 for anything with tuk(-tuk) and 5 for tricycle. Wikipedia article about this is also for Auto Rickshaw.

Regarding the comments about public_transport as a key, certainly makes sense as well, but consistency is more important. As long as there is amenity=taxi, the motorcycle taxi stand should be in the same scheme. Only because there is currently no proposal for transitioning amenity=taxi to public_transport, doesn't mean it is okay to hijack this proposal and make it about that amenity=taxi should be transitioned to public_transport. --Westnordost (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is accepted, I would like to discuss autorickshaws with the communities in some other countries first, before making a proposal, since those are not as common in Indonesia as they are in some other countries. (I would not tag autorickshaw stands with amenity=motorcycle_taxi). --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, that's sensible. This wikipedia article also has a very detailed overview of auto rickshaws around the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_rickshaw#Regional_variations --Westnordost (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I did not suggest to modify amenity=taxi. Only that with increasing varieties of "taxis", we should probably start using public_transport=* for them. This would also allow more nuanced aspect of "taxis" to be tagged. -- Kovposch (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

amenity=taxi doesn't restrict the usage to cars. Taxis are more general and include boats and motorcycles at least in France and Italy.

There is non need to change the amenity=taxi, simply add a sub-key taxi_vehicle=* for instance, that's it.

N.B. : a more radical solution would to change amenity=taxi to amenity=taxi_stand making a more coherent tagging schema using taxi_stand=* possible. --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"a more radical solution would to change amenity=taxi to amenity=taxi_stand." That would be logical since at the end of the day we tagging the drop off/pick up locations, not the vehicles themselves. Which taxi_vehicle=* makes it seem like is what we are mapping. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO it was a mistake to reject it

IMHO it was a big mistake to reject this tag, and if I can go further perhaps those who rejected might have an "eurocentric" / "first-world-centric" point of view. Motorcycle taxis are widely used in some parts of the world (Latin America, Africa, Asia etc.) and IMHO there must be a clear distinction between a regular taxi and a motorcycle taxi, because on the first you expect you can ride with multiple people, multiple bags etc. while on a motorcycle you are suppose to ride alone and with at maximum a backpack. It is bad, IMHO, to have it mapped as amenity=taxi + motorcycle=yes + name=Motorcycle taxi or something similar. --Nighto (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To me, it's precisely because I don't consider amenity=taxi as car-only taxi I had rejected it. Using separate tags to classify features don't mean it's less important information. Describe vehicles apart from amenity allows to define places where you can get car-taxi, motorcycle-taxi or both or any different possibility and thus more versatile. Fanfouer (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, in the end it doesn't matter how exactly we tag it, just that we tag it somehow consistently, but the fact is that, for now, the amenity=taxi explicity recomends not using motorcycle=yes or motorcar=no to add that information. --Nighto (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Without a doubt things are extremely "eurocentric" / "first-world-centric." That said, motorcycle=yes or motorcar=no don't work in this case because they are specifically meant to access tags and it would be confusing if people thought they could access a motorcycle on a motorcycle, obviously. That said, I was just looking for an alternative and found taxi_type=*. It only has 156 uses and lacks a Wiki page, but taxi_type=motorcycle seems reasonable to me. I think it was mentioned by Ignaciolep in the original proposal and from what I remember no one outright rejected it. Although my memory is a little hazy. With 156 uses there's clearly people who prefer it. Even if they didn't though, there doesn't seem to be an alternative anyway. At least not outside of access tags, which clearly won't work. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Coolio, I'll update amenity=taxi and amenity=motorcycle_taxi pages to point out mappers to this taxi_type=motorcycle tag.--Nighto (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Working on further proposal to clarify amenity=taxi and find a suitable solution with vehicle tags can be fine and I'll be happy to review it. The oposal wasn't about motorcycle taxis, but on the chosen solution to describe them Fanfouer (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

+1. KISS and by the way stating that a taxi is a taxi is quite the opposite of an "eurocentric" / "first-world-centric" point of view. I hate *type* tags as type says nothing (here it was just in order to avoid a clash with the access key). Please note that like @Fanfouer: I voted against the proposal, not against the idea of better mapping various kind of taxi stands.--Nospam2005 (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Created key taxi_type=* and tag taxi_type=motorcycle wiki pages, and edited amenity=motorcycle_taxi and amenity=taxi pages to link to them, so we can gain some momentum around it. --Nighto (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Nighto:. By the way taxi_type contains type and I think it's too general (from naming perspective). Could this evolve in taxi_vehicle=* or something? Fanfouer (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues towards that, but I just went with taxi_type=* because it is currently used (taginfo reports 150+ uses), versus taxi_vehicle=* which is currently zero.--Nighto (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't but we do ;-). taxi_type has currently a usage close to 0, so changing the key wouldn't be a big deal (not used by apps, for rendering, etc.). --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Taxi_type contains type and I think it's too general." I'm usually against any kind "type" tags myself, but I don't see a problem with it in this case since IMO there's nothing else "type" can mean except for what kind of vehicle the taxi is. Maybe there's some obscure edge case where someone will think "type" means the material of the taxis or the form of payment or something, but that can go for any tag. So I don't really see a problem with it. BTW, in no way is 150 uses close to zero. Is it low usage? Sure. Close to zero though? Obviously not. Lets all try our best to be clear about things here and not needlessly over or under exaggerate the numbers. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's minor but I mean, if a proposal is written to review and make the key approved, it's a good opportunity. It won't be a big deal to mass edit the 200 features and start again with a proper name. Main issue is the example it gives. Other tagging contributors may be inspired by the _type suffix. We'd better get completely rid of that type usage Fanfouer (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"Other tagging contributors may be inspired by the _type suffix." At this point I think that ship has sunk, just like it has with namespaces/prefixes. The best thing to do now is to just use _type responsibly and just in cases where it's the only "good" option like this one. Otherwise your getting into old man yells at sky territory. "Kids and their namespaces these days! When I was young we had to use key and a value combinations to describe specific features of map elements. 10 miles up hill in a snow storm! Grumble, moan, grumble."

Anyway, I lost my train my of thought. Time for some milk, cookies, and a good nap even though I just woke up an hour ago. On a serious note though, no one ultimately cares what the specific words of a tag are. Just describe it's usage well, re-tag the mistakes when needed, and lets not dwell on the meaningless minutia at cost of motorcycle taxis. The important thing is that they are mapped, not the specific details of how exactly that's done. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I respectably disagree, we continuously replace type tagging and the effort worth it. Look at adoption of tower:type=anchor vs line_attachment=anchor or this diary. Tagging semantic sounds important to me, and so do some consumers apparently Fanfouer (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Coolio, can someone step up and do the mass edit? Usually mass edits are bad but in this case I don't think so - I don't care much how we tag it, since we do tag it :) --Nighto (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually the ones asking for someone to step up should be the ones stepping up :P Did the change on the wiki - taxi_vehicle=* / taxi_vehicle=motorcycle / amenity=taxi and a mass edit on this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130238621 --Nighto (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In order to go forward and make it "official", it'd be better if I create a Proposed page, right? So we can move the discussion over there. I'm not super familiar with the procedure but shouldn't be much more than duplicating this page and changing the tag name and the arguments ;) --Nighto (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For unknown reasons, I didn't get the last updates of that discussion and was about to ask @Fanfouer: if he could make a proposal. Of course this would include the replacement of... too late the change has been made (please DON'T do such edits over countries). So yes it's better to make a proposal we all could vote for ;-). @Fanfouer: has made successful proposals in the past. --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"I respectably disagree, we continuously replace type tagging." Not without a proposal and I don't see one. In the meantime _type is already being used. We can debate which tag is better all day, but _type is one being used already then it's fine to go with the default until someone proposes an alternative. Otherwise, have fun doing an undiscussed mass edit. Personally, I rather avoid the drama even if _type tags aren't optimal. That said, you already have two people here saying taxi_type is fine. So it's already roll of the dice if you'll get outside support to change it. I'll be interested to see what other people's opinions are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: for OpenStreetMap usage, 150 - right now 157 made by eleven users - is close to 0. As I said it means no app is using it, no renderer is using it, it means, that a mass edit can easily be done, that we can inform the 11 users individually. Please don't over state what I said, I never said those are negligible, I don't think so. You pretend that 2 users would like to keep _type here but I see none. I see 4 people willing to have motorcycle properly mapped. @Nighto: is also happy with taxi_vehicle=* (first user!) and you have nothing against it if properly changed. Formally, as the `taxi_type` as no formal existence, we couldn't care (one case of brutal mass edit that is allowed - not a good practice but an allowed one). That's not our point of view. Maybe @Jeisenbe: as initiator of this proposal could make a second version, almost same rationale but extending amenity=taxi, adding a "sub-key" taxi_vehicle=* and deprecating the unofficial taxi_type. Note : on a general point on view (but not for stands), taxi_type could be "normal", or "low_cost" (like Uber, Lyft...). --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"@Nighto: is also happy with taxi_vehicle=*." And what's the description for that tag you might ask? "A way to specify taxi type." So how is that any different or better then taxi_type? It's literally the exact same thing except "vehicle" instead of "type", but your still using the tag to describe the type of taxi. So we might as well just going go with taxi_type instead of acting like taxi_vehicle=* is somehow magically a different tag when it obviously isn't. Also, I don't really appreciate your claim that I'm "pretending" that 2 users would like to keep _type. I'm fine with and it seems like Nighto is also. The last time I checked that's two people. If your going to be bad faithed and/or condescending then I really have nothing else to say about it. Get back to me you can figure how taxi_type and taxi_vehicle=* are actually different. Then we might have something to talk about. At this point we clearly don't though.

BTW, a tag like taxi_vehicle=cycle_rickshaw is just ridiculous. No one considers bicycles to be vehicles. Although they are types of taxis. The same goes for pulled rickshaws, which again are types of taxis but not vehicles. I wonder what your solution to that would be. Have people suck it up and tag them as taxi_vehicle=* anyway or what? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? A type can be anything, a taxi type could be as I said making the difference between a real taxi a a cheap version.

About bicycle definition, please have a look at https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/bicycle_1?q=bicycle or don't you consider road vehicles as vehicles? I guess you do. Don't mistake it as being condescending, I didn't write the Oxford dictionary, I'm not even a native British speaker.--Nospam2005 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nospam2005: What was condescending was you saying that I was "pretending" two people supported taxi_type. Not however the Oxford Dictionary defines a bicycle, obviously. I assume you know that are just deflecting. Either way, as I've said below in most "western" countries peddle bikes aren't legally classified as vehicles. People don't really consider them to be vehicles either. Although I will grant that it varies depending on the place, but we need a tag that's universally recognizable and understandable here. Not one that is only useful in a small percentage of Asian countries where they classify peddle rickshaws as vehicles simply because they are the common mode of taxi traffic or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

2. I would say yes and no. While bicycle=* is a vehicle=*, there is an argument to be made about taxi=* belonging to motor_vehicle=* in general. *=cycle_rickshaw is not even motorized, compared to *=motorcycle and *=auto_rickshaw. So you need to consider whether taxi_vehicle=* has any effect to taxi=* outside amenity=taxi.
There appears to be carriage=* taxi stands too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvEASJ8XmNo --- Kovposch (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

'So you need to consider whether taxi_vehicle=* has any effect to taxi=* outside amenity=taxi.' good point, I would say no. Quoting w:Taxi#Vehicles, "Taxi services are typically provided by automobiles, but in some countries various human-powered vehicles, (such as the rickshaw or pedicab) and animal-powered vehicles (such as the Hansom cab) or even boats (such as water taxies or gondolas) are also used or have been used historically.", it doesn't mean we have to stick to Wikipedia definitions but it makes life easier. For access key taxi=yes it may depend on local rules, probably it's only for fuel-powered vehicle.--Nospam2005 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kovposch: "While bicycle=* is a vehicle=*" As far as I know in most western, English speaking countries bicycles aren't classified as vehicles, legally or usually otherwise. Although I'd grant that it's probably more nuanced in the Asian countries where a tag like this is going to be mainly used. But we still follow British English standards and as far as I know "vehicles" in that case don't include non-motorized, peddle bicycles. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely not true legally. What do you think the red border empty white circle sign means? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made
"
Diagram 617
All vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically
propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians
"
The motorcycle and car sign is used for "Motor vehicles prohibited "
"Motor vehicle" is defined as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/3/made
By international agreement, A "Cycle" is "any vehicle which has at least two wheels and is propelled solely by the muscular energy"... https://unece.org/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_signs_2006v_EN.pdf
So there are more terms such as "power-driven vehicle" and "self-propelled vehicles" in laws to help explain other cases.
All signs, road markings, and other rules has to be followed by all vehicles, including non-motorized vehicles.
Vehicle is simply a shorthand for motorized vehicle in common usage, or that motorized vehicle are more common than non-motorized vehicle.
Therefore for example, "goods vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle or trailer constructed or adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods"... A "traffic lane" is "a part of the carriageway intended for use by vehicles " including bikes. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made#f00047
--- Kovposch (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"That's definitely not true legally." As I've said it depends on where your talking about. Also, like I've said already, we don't base tags purely on legal definitions anyway. So the whole discussion about it is pointless and super pedantic. Lets say I go with the "legal definition" thing though. Cool, but what then happens when the UNECE modifies the international agreement? Do we just arbitrarily re-tag a bunch of objects or back peddle and act like legal definitions somehow suddenly don't matter anymore?

"Vehicle is simply a shorthand for motorized vehicle in common usage." I agree with that, which is why I went on the whole diatribe about gearboxes, peddling, scooters, Etc. Etc. and said we to come up with a tag that include literally everything under the sun as a "vehicle." Just re-reiterating something we both agree on doesn't somehow magically make a tag like vehicle_for_hire=* not conflict with bicycle_rental=*. So for like the fifth time what's your solution to that outside of citing the UN? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"type" is meaningless. Can taxi_type=* be used for size? Special wheelchair taxis?
taxi_vehicle=* is personally not ideal. But it is acceptable as interim.
--- Kovposch (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of using "taxi", as you mentioned Uber and Lyft, there is a possibility to leave "taxi" untouched altogether, by switching to a general "for hire" vehicle category. This would solve ride-hailing (I absolutely hate the "ride-sharing" term) alongside. taxi=* is thus reserved for motorcar=*. No need for any semantics issue with taxi_*=* or taxi:*=*. Kovposch (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely neutral about the term, I note that you prefer the recommended term by the Associated Press Stylebook, it can't be that bad ;-).

But renting a cab or a house is a bit different, that's why I would prefer vehicle_for_hire=*`, it would be in line with Wikipedia but it would touch taxi keys as taxis are vehicles for hire. --Nospam2005 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the whole "vehicle" thing, "For hire" is a mainly European term for rental. So it can't be used since it's not universally recognized. Although there are a few "for_hire" tags out there, but none of them have been used to any meaningful degree. Let outside of Europe. Usually for any tag to be usable it has to have the potential for usage outside of an extremely small geographic area. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

To categorize the kind of taxis, Wikipedia uses the term Vehicle, you seem to assimilate vehicle and motor vehicle. It is not the same, notably on a legal perspective. It is not by accident that OpenStreetMap has 1.8 million uses of motor_vehicle.

The keys are to be taken from British English as long as it doesn't confuse people elsewhere (false friends in other languages for instance). I believe rental is more US-centric, but probably both are well understandable world-wide, and vehicle for hire is the term used by Wikipedia, on the mentioned article a link to "Taxicabs, Vehicle-For-Hire & Pipelines". Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Los Angeles is not in Europe, is it? --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can say whatever they want, but this isn't Wikipedia and they don't claim to be an authoritative source anyway. At the end of the day we need to figure out a term that fits OpenStreeMap's audience, not theirs obviously and I've said both "vehicle" and "for hire" aren't universally recognized words for what we are trying to convey here, which isn't somehow magically negated by you claiming that we have "false friends" who don't use those terms or whatever your trying to get at. Really, the whole thing just seems like more of the condescension that I've already told you to put in check. It's not that hard, either have an actual argument that addresses what I've said without the backhanded comments or I have nothing else to say about this until you do. In the meantime it's going to confuse people.

Hell, it confuses me. Which is why I brought it up. There's CALIFORNIA BICYCLE LAW "Under California law, a bicycle is not considered a vehicle" just to give some actual evidence to support what I said about how bicycles aren't considered vehicles everywhere. I'm sure there's other examples. Although, rickshaws pulled by humans and animals clearly aren't "vehicles" anyway, but your answer to that would probably be to claim I'm just pretending they aren't or some other nonsense. "But, but, but, muh Wikipedia!" --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How does one jurisdiction shows " bicycles aren't considered vehicles everywhere."? That's for the purpose of legislation. You can still find "motor vehicle" being defined as " is a vehicle that is self-propelled.". This pertains to trailers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=
The federal MUTCD makes "vehicle" as "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property can be transported or drawn upon a highway, except trains and light rail transit operating in exclusive or semi-exclusive alignments. Light rail transit equipment operating in a mixed-use alignment, to which other traffic is not required to yield the right-of-way by law, is a vehicle.". While it does not define "motor vehicle", the term is used throughout the definitions. A "bicycle" is a "a pedal-powered vehicle". A "roadway" is " portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human-powered vehicles. " https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2r3/part1/part1a.htm
--- Kovposch (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Btw, surely the majority of US state governments uses department of "motor vehicle" not department of "vehicle", including California itself, hence the popularity of "DMV". The model Uniform Vehicle Code has "vehicle" as "Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or track"; and "motor vehicle" as " Every vehicle which is self-propelled, and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails, except vehicles moved solely by human power and motorized wheelchair" https://iamtraffic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf Kovposch (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it was one example since Nospam2005 claimed I was pretending. Obviously I'm not going to create a table with the laws, regulations, and social norms of every municipal government out there just so I'm not accused of being a lier or whatever. Get real dude. I'm sure there are other examples though. While I agree that in the case of California it's the purpose of the legislator, they tend to follow whatever the norms of their constitutes are at the time. So if the California legislator doesn't consider bicycles vehicles, it's pretty likely most of the population in California doesn't either. I know I don't as someone from California who rides a bicycle pretty regularly. As a side to that, in cases where bicycles are considered vehicles the reason often comes down to them classifying the peddling/gear box as a type of motor. I don't really feel like getting into the weeds about it, but that's a ridiculous to classify something.

Otherwise, what's the difference between a bicycle, unicycle, those mini electric cars for children, scooters, go carts, hell my hot wheels car that goes forward when I pull it back a couple of feet, Etc. Etc. Obviously there has to be a line between "a vehicle" and "not a vehicle" beyond it just having a basic "engine", whatever that means. Which is why I'm against the term "vehicle" in the first place, because it's as worthless and meaningless as "type" is. I guess you and Nospam2005 are free to figure out where the line is and I'll probably support it if you can, but I don't see either of you even attempt to figure out what is or isn't a "vehicle." I really shouldn't have to say why "Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported" is way to broad. But at least in spirit if not meaning there's clearly a distinction made in Openstreetmap's between scooters, bicycles, and "vehicles." --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just have a look of the mess because each kind of vehicle (and non vehicle according to Californian law) has a top tag for parking. Many of them accept several fine kind of vehicle (or non vehicle ;-)). --Nospam2005 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there's the whole "motor vehicle" thing, but no one being at all good faithed about this is going to argue that we should be tagging bicycle or scooter rental kiosks as vehicle_for_hire or taxi_vehicle. Least of which because there's already bicycle_rental=docking_station, but also because vehicle_for_hire and taxi_vehicle are just nonsensical in those cases, whatever the Oxford English dictionary says about it. At the end of the day we need something that isn't going to conflict with existing tags or ways of defining things. Personally, I care about what actually works and follows prior tagging conventions. vehicle_for_hire and taxi_vehicle clearly doesn't fit either criteria. Period. So we need a tag that includes both "vehicle" and "non-vehicle" modes of transportation. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"no one being at all good faithed about this is going to argue that we should be tagging bicycle or scooter rental kiosks as vehicle_for_hire or taxi_vehicle". Are you kidding? When you use a taxi you don't drive. When you hire a taxi, you buy a service. Taxi_vehicle would be used as precision for the taxi, as taxi can't be used, being already used as access key. The lawyer didn't show where a bicycle is not a vehicle in the Californian law, but that a bicycle driver has to act slightly differently. --Nospam2005 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"When you hire a taxi, you buy a service." And you do the same when rent a bicycle or scooter. So what's your point?

"The lawyer didn't show where a bicycle is not a vehicle in the Californian law." Since when is that the standard? It seems like your implying the lawyer is lying. 99% of what has been said here isn't backed up by anything, let alone specific legal statutes. If that's the requirement then there's zero reason to take most of what's been seriously. If nothing else we can trust that if a lawyer says California doesn't consider bicycles to be vehicles that's the case though. Like I said, that's at least been my experience as a Californian. Apparently your the de-facto arbitrator of truth here and everything else is just made up lies or some nonsense though "Eye roll." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You linked to an article named "CALIFORNIA BICYCLE LAW" from a lawyer. Yes I do expect a lawyer to quote the law, using references, as @Kovposch: does. As for me it's standard. I already hear you claiming that I pretend the you're using sub-standards. So in advance I say: no, but as you claim (with right) that Wikipedia is not necessary the reference, at least they do use references and, yes, I do expect a lawyer to quote the law. Not more not less. And BTW the text can be found here. And yes I do expect that if you mention the law, that you reference it. Sounds simply logic to me.

Believe it or not but the rights of a cyclist is governed in this state by the CVC 21960, part of the vehicle code:

Vehicle Code - VEH

DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336]  ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971]  ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

In short, California laws defines bicycles as not vehicles (proving that normally it's a vehicle in USA) and that their drivers should obey most vehicle rules and some pedestrian rules. So like in many places of the Earth where a bicycle is a vehicle, just considering as pedestrian with less priorities than a normal pedestrian and most of the attributes of a motor vehicle driver. As motorized wheel chairs in Germany require a driving license, do you consider it as a vehicle? Does our opinion on the subject contribute to solve the question raised by @Nighto:? IMHO, I doubt.

Do you have taxis using bicycles in California? If not, taxi_vehicle=* remain the simple logical option.

Do you prefer taxi_vehicle_including_bicycle_in_California=*?

Do you prefer taxi_vehicle_or_not_but_not_pedestrian_if_not_on_bicycle=*?

KISS: use taxi_vehicle=* and if you find that bicycles can be used as taxis in Californian, add on the relevant wiki page that vehicle is not restricted to motor vehicle, notably it applies to bicycle in California. --Nospam2005 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Yes I do expect a lawyer to quote the law, using references, as @Kovposch: does." I'd expect both of them to quote the law to if tagging conventions in Openstreetmap's were based on legal statues. They aren't though. Just like we don't normally need to quote specific laws around administrative boundaries to discuss how to use boundary=administrative tag. Let alone quote legal definitions of parks to talk about how to use leisure=park Etc. Etc. Acting like we do really just comes off like bad faithed gas lighting. Clearly you have no other argument except to try and force my hand by acting like the only thing that matters here is what DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336] or whatever says.

You mentioned the law, as you mention the law I do expect a reference to this law. Not more not less. KISS --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, lets put aside the super pedantic and pointless legal nonsense aside for a minute. The problem I have with taxi_vehicle=* is that there are taxis that aren't vehicles. Sure, we can spend all day debating if bicycles are vehicles or not. The important thing to figure out though is if taxi=vehicles. I say it doesn't. What's your opinion? Do think it is at all possible that there might taxis that aren't vehicles or is are taxis somehow by their very nature or whatever inherently, magically vehicles? Like does something to have a gearbox to be a taxi since that's how some countries seem to define what is or isn't a vehicle? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Initially you said *=cycle_rickshaw wasn't an vehicle and you found a place where bicycle aren't considered as a vehicle. For me we don't need laws or dictionaries to define a vehicle in OpenStreetMap, either. If the normal place of a thing on a road with sidewalks is the main part it's a vehicle. In rather residential US areas, side walks are large and maybe cyclists are allowed on sidewalks in California. In France it's forbidden (the "minimal requirement is footway with special information saying that they're authorized). Only toys (small bicycles for kids) are allowed on sidewalks.

I could only find tricycles rickshaws, no bicycle with trailer used as taxi/rickshaw.

Anyway, what about trying to use a very different tag that may be acceptable for everybody? What about mode_of_transport=* ? The corresponding page exists in 18 languages on Wikipedia. @Nighto:, @Fanfouer:, @Kovposch:, @Adamant1:?

Adamant1, it's fully in line with your comment "There's lots of different types of taxis. Instead of creating separate amenity tags for them all, Why not just use the regular amenity=taxi tag, which is already widely supported, along with something like taxi=motorcycle?", for most of the opposition for the previous vote, it would disappear. One point was that amenity=taxi would have been meant for cars. It's not only false according to the wiki, including the definition of the access key (it says taxi vehicles. LoL), but we could said that for quality assurance reason the mode_of_transport=* should be added, mode_of_transport=motor_vehicle would be considered as default value for the renderer/data user(solving the rendered issue). --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"For me we don't need laws or dictionaries to define a vehicle in OpenStreetMap." Then why did you waste a week repeatedly citing both like they mattered? Or do they only matter when it suites you, but not when they don't? It's ridiculous that you expect me to decide on a specific tag when you can't even stick to a single talking point from one message to another.

"If the normal place of a thing on a road with sidewalks is the main part it's a vehicle." So then horses and mulls are vehicles in countries where they are allowed to walk on the side of the road then? Interesting defining. Not really at all useful for anything, let alone the definition of a tag, but still interesting none the less. If you don't mind me asking, what country are you from?

"What about mode_of_transport=*." I think the mode of transport is at the crux of what we are trying to create a tag for. Although, I think people might be confused if the mode of transport is a taxi, or a bicycle rickshaw. Really, "mode" is essentially the same as "type." I think a better term would be "taxi frame" or something along those lines. Not something that can have multiple meanings like "mode" or "type." mode_of_transport=* is on the right track though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"taxi frame" sounds very strange to me. Surely not OK for an OpenStreetMap usage (sounds like taxi syndicate - government convention to me). A search doesn't return any meaningful result. Do you prefer means_of_transport? On Wikipedia it's defined in 17 languages, meaning is pretty straight forward.--Nospam2005 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

""taxi frame" sounds very strange to me." Sure, it sounds weird to me also. Which is why I didn't suggest taxi_frame=*, just said that's what we are trying to convey with "mode", "type", "vehicle" or whatever. I'm sure people can come up with more specific word that doesn't sound as weird. I don't think that's my job though. I'm not here to tell people how to tag things. Anyway, I'm not really into "means_of_transport" for the reason I've already said. Means=mode=type. There's no difference and they all have the same problems. You can't just complain about "type", replace it with a 1/1 synonym, and then act like it's somehow different or better.

Also, as I've said already the tag should be confined to taxis since that's what the discussion is about. I'm categorically not going to support any tag that re-invents the wheel 15 tags up in the chain or could otherwise be used to replace approved/established tagging schemes. Honestly, I'm kind of sick of repeating myself about it. Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by picking random synonyms of "type" or "vehicle" and just come up with something that works already. Or maybe just stop suggesting things. It's possible other people will have better ideas and at this point your way past bludgeoning the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to taxi_vehicle=* discussion page? It is quite long and hard to read here.--Nighto (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So "European" means Continental? If following British English, taxis have a "'for hire' light" and can "ply for hire". This contrasts with "private hire vehicles". https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/what-to-expect-from-your-journey Kovposch (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

British people let houses. But as user you rent it. English is not the official language of any Continental country, right? --Nospam2005 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)