I don't think you're picking on me. In fact, I think you ask the right questions.
One problem I have with the concept of "access=destination", even beyond the fact that it says "right of access", is that parking lots quite often aren't connected to the places they serve. Something like access=customer is therefore *more general*. The parking lot might be across the street from the destination. Is "access=destination" accurate then? How do you translate "this is the only road to your destination" to a parking lot anyway? Obviously not "this is the only parking lot for your destination". There might be multiple parking lots available. Not "this parking lot is connected to your destination". That would be both underinclusive (parking lot is across the street) and overinclusive (a public park is next to the lot, but parking is for customers of the business on the *other* side of the parking lot). Not "this parking lot is conveniently located for your destination" (for much the same reasons, if not more so). Hell, by the general definition of "access=destination", if you're using a parking lot, it is, by definition, your destination (and you can't possibly access that destination without driving through the parking lot)! On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Seventy 7 <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so what exactly are we trying to achieve here? What are these tags > going to be used for - who, why and when? We can have as many > classifications as we like, but why? They only lead to confusion and > differences in interpretation. > > I'm not picking on Anthony here, his is just the email I happen to be > replying to :-) > > Personally: > I'm looking at a city centre I'm going to visit, I'm looking out for blue > Ps. I don't really care if they're commercial car parks or not. > Mapping the areas around shopping centres? Just make them yellow! I know > they'll have car parking, they always do. > Does the sports club I'm visiting have a car park? It goes without saying > they are for members and visitors. Just make them yellow! > > Can anyone park there? Do I have to have a reason to park there? Am I not > allowed to park there? > > That should do, surely? > > Steve > > From: [email protected][mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony > Sent: 19 May 2010 17:33 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Parking for businesses.. > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Phil! Gold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Anthony <[email protected]>[2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of > > > notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. Sothe > general > > > idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting > thebusinesses > > > serviced by the lot. > > > > > > Access=destination? No, the public has no right of access. > > I thought the description of access=destination matched thisscenario > fairly well. You're saying that it only applies if the road is publicly > owned? (i.e. a strict reading of "right of access" rather than"you're > allowed to be here if...") > > > > I do think access=destination should only be used where people have a right > ofaccess. But furthermore, "you're allowed to be here if" isn't thesame as > "there aren't any signs saying you're not allowed to be hereif". > > If there were a sign which said "anyone may use this parking lot if thisis > their destination", maybe access=destination is appropriate. ButI've never > seen such a sign. > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: > Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
