On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Randy <rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can >>park here if you are visiting an associated business". ... > > That sounds good to me, as well.
So... access=destination seems to have some support. My issue is that its use doesn't really reflect the wiki definition - which, at the moment, is only really explained in relation to highways. At the moment, access=destination is defined as "the public has right of access only if this is the only road to your destination." For access=destination to be extended to parking areas, I think this would need to be changed to something like: "the public may access/use this entity only if it is necessary to do so in order to get to your destination." Is this sufficient? Secondly, Peter asked "How should we tag a private corporate employee car park ... where there are staff car parks and patient car pars and they are different." This is a good point, and it can't be expressed with access=destination. This is another reason why I'm still leaning towards introducing parking=*, in which case the carpark for staff would be parking=staff and for patients, parking=customer. Thoughts? Change the definition of access=destination or introduce parking=*? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging