Talk:Key:coach

There is a lot of discouraging of tourist_bus to mean coach, but from actual usage (6656 as of 9/2018) you can see it is probably intended for the bus vehicle class (as opposed to a bus acting as a public service vehicle). This is backed by the fact it is for a long time defined in the general access=* tag definition page. “Coach” does not seem to add anything different here and is used only 280times (9/2018) —Dieterdreist (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The high usage of tourist_bus is A) due to the inclusion of it in an editor preset and B) the tendency of some users to check every box in an editor preset. So, basically a mistake. (I.e. yes, this is a public road, yes, also taxis may drive here, yes, also buses, yes, also tourist buses, yes, also HGV, yes, also,... etc etc). Just analyze the usage of this tag via overpass or something and you will see --Westnordost (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There might be people checking a lot of checkboxes in presets, but this would happen with coach as well. I would support a transition if there were advantages, but with coach literally being a synonym of tourist bus it doesn’t make sense, even less if you think about tagging properties regarding the restrictions for “Kraftomnibus”(motorbus) because I have only ever once seen a traffic sign stating “Reisebus”(coach). —Dieterdreist (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are you of the opinion that the English word "tourist bus" is synonymous to the word "coach"? Do you have a source to back up that claim? Note that these access-Tags are also used for speed limit restrictions (maxspeed:bus for example) and at least the defaults by law do in many countries set different speed limits for buses than for coaches. --Westnordost (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I did not claim that people would stop checking boxes in JOSM presets if "coach" would be in the preset. I was refuting the point you were making about how tourist_bus is used so much more often by saying that most of its usage is due to this and actually applied wrongly - not due to an actual sign but because someone checked all the boxes. --Westnordost (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks as if everything has been said. Why don’t you simply set up a proposal to check the support for a duplicate (or an alternative, according to the point of view)? That’s the normal procedure to introduce tag fragmentation ;-) —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should do that, but I never set up a proposal. In my head, it is a complicated and long-winded process with the good possibility that in the end it becomes one of those abandoned proposal corpses after all the effort. That is why I strive to achieve approval in forum/wiki/mailinglist discussion. Perhaps you can help me to create a proposal? Or didn't you mean it in earnest? (asking because of the sarcastic(?) comment) --Westnordost (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is not complicated at all, you already have done almost everything, you only located the proposal in the wrong part of the wiki and didn't add the proposal template. You can find everything here: Proposal_process. After moving the page / content, you should write a short mail "RFC" to the tagging mailing list. Usually you do it like this: draft, RFC (mail to tagging), wait 2 weeks, if there are no modifications you could vote (again 2 weeks). You do not have to vote (although it speeds up the process). You can keep the proposal there and when significant usage confirms the tag, you can promote it to "de facto".--Dieterdreist (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)