I think internet_access could be used in both ways. It can be used vaguely, as an attribute of a restaurant, hotel, pub. Those places offer their service of bringing you internet access. If you don't have a strong enough signal, it just means the service is bad.
But attributing internet access to a park seems strange. You can't complain to someone that you have bad signal at your bench. I would rather map it as a point if it's in the open. Janko pet, 17. tra 2015. 00:54 Nelson A. de Oliveira <[email protected]> je napisao: > We are having a discussion in talk-br about internet_access in parks > and other open areas. > > From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:internet_access and from > what I understand, it's a characteristic of the place/object (so it > should not exist without a building, amenity, tourism, shop, leisure > or other kind of place). > If the park offers wifi, then the park should have a internet_access=wifi > > But there are people seeing it different: it should be used at the > spot where the access is offered (where the access point is locate), > since there is no guarantee that people will have wifi signal at every > place of the park. > > For me this second view is incomplete, since we won't be able to find > or tell if a shop, park or anything else offers Internet access. > Also, there isn't any statement in > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:internet_access that assures > that the place must offer access in all its extension. > > What is the current convention (and better way) to use internet_access > for cases like this? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
