Indeed, I am myself somewhat opposed to a qualifier for each type of lounge out there in the main key. Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably won't work. In light of this, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, airport_lounge might be a better option.
I could also potentially see the original amenity=lounge key, used with a lounge=airport/rail/etc key. Anton 2018-06-12 0:37 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > > > sent from a phone > > On 11. Jun 2018, at 23:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On 10. Jun 2018, at 13:28, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> If proposed as amenity=waiting_room I'd vote for it. If proposed as > amenity=lounge I'd vote against it. > > > > > > +1 > > > taking it back, sorry. We could probably have all three, waiting room/area > and lounge. > > Maybe waiting_lounge? airport lounge has the disadvantage that it doesn’t > cover the same concept in train stations. Unlike airports it is not common > there, but some (major) train stations have those lounges, usually access > is limited (e.g. first class ticket, or some kind of membership in a > frequent client program). > > While I agree that lounge alone can be ambiguous, the qualifier ideally > should not be repeating the context but describe the concept, -0.6 to > airport_lounge. > > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
