Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Am Do., 23. Juli 2020 um 15:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Careful with "access". > access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this > building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer. > no, this does not seem to make sense. When there is a highway=footway with access=customers, would you sustain it implies you can go there with any vehicle if you are a customer? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Within the way drawn for the office building, you should place a separate node for the office POI. This node should be one having the given access=* tag. Although, I think if I can visit a public office, that usually implies that I have access to the given building as well, we usually do not add access=* to buildings. On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:53 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > Careful with "access". > access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this > building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer. > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:46, bkil wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >>> So it would have to be customer_service=yes|no at least. >>> That would also permit to check which offices have been evaluated by >>> mappers for the presence or less of customer_service. >>> >>> >> access=customers/private would also solve this without having to invent a >> new top level tag. >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Careful with "access". access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer. On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:46, bkil wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> So it would have to be customer_service=yes|no at least. >> That would also permit to check which offices have been evaluated by >> mappers for the presence or less of customer_service. >> >> > access=customers/private would also solve this without having to invent a > new top level tag. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > So it would have to be customer_service=yes|no at least. > That would also permit to check which offices have been evaluated by > mappers for the presence or less of customer_service. > > access=customers/private would also solve this without having to invent a new top level tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
You are trying to address a reaIly (numerically) big problem. I would have thought anything with office=* may need an indication of the presence or less of customer service. Most likely anything that is shop=* would implicitly offer customer service. So for the 700k office=* we need to retrofit an indication, whether they offer or not customer service. As I said above, this looks to me like a gigantic task to start with, but I also see a problem with the proposed tag: If an office offers customer service I add amenity=customer_service, but how do I indicate that they don't? So it would have to be customer_service=yes|no at least. That would also permit to check which offices have been evaluated by mappers for the presence or less of customer_service. On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Yes, and in such cases shop should be used. > > But in some cases where office=* is used > there is no known to me tagging scheme > covering this, such as car of energy > company customer service location. > > It is place where you may handle overdue > bill payment plans or attaching new property > to power network or dispute bill. > > Is there shop tag for that? > At least in my region people always tag > it work office, and it seems to not be > really fitting for shop key. > > > 23 Jul 2020, 14:06 by si...@poole.ch: > > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be > covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? > Am 23.07.2020 um 12:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service > > Feedback, complaints, edits to the page (especially concerning grammar, > typos and clarity) > are highly welcomed > > ___ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:09, Simon Poole wrote: > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be > covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? > One use that comes to mind, where shop is inappropriate, is my county council. It has small (one- or two-person) offices in major towns that deal with queries, complaints, accept rent payment and council tax payment, hand out rolls of recycling bags, etc. It also has a headquarters with many buildings housing various departments, most of which do not accept walk-ins (but may invite people to attend in special circumstances). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Yes, and in such cases shop should be used. But in some cases where office=* is used there is no known to me tagging scheme covering this, such as car of energy company customer service location. It is place where you may handle overdue bill payment plans or attaching new property to power network or dispute bill. Is there shop tag for that? At least in my region people always tag it work office, and it seems to not be really fitting for shop key. 23 Jul 2020, 14:06 by si...@poole.ch: > > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be > covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? > > Am 23.07.2020 um 12:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > >> See >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service >> >> Feedback, complaints, edits to the page (especiallyconcerning >> grammar, typos and clarity) >> are highly welcomed >> >> ___Tagging mailing list>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Could you perhaps use existing tags instead of this? office=company + access=customers vs. office=company + access=private On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:44 PM Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be > covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? > > It is also a confusing term to have chosen as prior to reading your page I > had a Customer Services desk in my mind. Typically this is where you go to > exchange purchases, get refunds. > > Phil (trigpoint) > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already > be covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) > shop=* > value? > > > It is also a confusing term to have chosen as prior to reading your page I had a Customer Services desk in my mind. Typically this is where you go to exchange purchases, get refunds. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC
Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? Am 23.07.2020 um 12:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service > > Feedback, complaints, edits to the page (especially concerning > grammar, typos and clarity) > are highly welcomed > > ___ > 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
