2013/7/24 Andrew Chadwick (lists) <a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com> > > As described in the proposal, "inquiry" is partly about practical > locking mechanisms so a better way which factors out those concerns is > > access=private > locked={yes|<mechanism>} [1] (or some other tag) >
While I can see your intention here, that is the most counter-intuitive way to tag this I've ever seen. You would tag a PUBLIC toilet with access=PRIVATE just because you have to ask for a key first? > This is better because access=private already carries the "you must > inquire" meaning. As the Key:access page states, access=private means > "only with permission of the owner on an individual basis". And how > does one acquire permission? One inquires. > There is a subtle difference between enquiring for permission to enter/use and to inquire for the key/code/token. We won't tag access=private at all, because we only want public toilets to be in the database. Access=permissive would be the most limited value I would tag at all. A toilet at a gas station might be for anyone to use (access right) (access=public? access=yes?), but you still may have to inquire within for the key (access method). > > For your example, one needn't inquire as to whether one may use the > toilets if one is a customer. Merely after a code, for example. So a > better way would be to use > > access=customers > locked=code [1] (or some other tag) > So maybe we mean the same thing after all. The access restriction has nothing to do with inquiring for a code. I still think its more helpful to tell that you have to ask the staff instead of just saying it is locked with a code. > > I object to muddling the access=* key with yet more values having the > same meaning as existing ones, especially without discussion on the > access tagging page. access=* describes legal access, and should have > nothing to do with practical access (except for barriers, sigh). In > short: if you need to ask before each use, then it's an existing > restrictive access value, either "customers", or more probably "private". > I see your concerns about using the access key here. I'm fine with access=* having a different meaning depending on the main tag. We have that for other tags as well (type=* is probably the best example). But if others also see this problem, we better might move it to toilet::access to avoid confusion. Not all the access=* values make sense anyway. (access=hgv anyone?) Regards, Chaos
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging