Read what I wrote. My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted to car-poolers only.
-------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool From :mailto:[email protected] Date :Sun Nov 14 14:16:07 America/Chicago 2010 Le 14/11/2010 20:33, [email protected] a écrit : > If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it > would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling. Why do you make a relation between carpooling and access limitation ? The carpooling utilization is not exclusive, you can park your car without doing carpooling. So IMHO the access key is a mistake. > -------Original Email------- > Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool > From :mailto:[email protected] > Date :Sun Nov 14 08:35:02 America/Chicago 2010 > > > Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 2010/11/13 John Smith <[email protected]>: >>>> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private, >>>>> which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to >>>>> park there. >>>> >>>> access=destination ? >>> >>> My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it >>> might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park. >> >> We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not? > > No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park > without doing carpooling too. > > Regards > > -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : [email protected] Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
