May 11, 2020, 13:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski <>>> ja...@piorkowski.ca>>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to >>>> public parking then you also need to know to check for >>>> access!=private. >>>> >>> >>> >>> this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking with >>> amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as >>> amenity=shower or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water. >>> >> Not really. Private parking are worth mapping - it is stiil useful for >> orientation, data analysis, >> QA (private parkings vs unmapped) etc >> > > > right, but this doesn't mean it must have the same main tag, in particular > "amenity" as key. For example we do not map private post boxes (your incoming > mail) the same as those from the postal service for outgoing mail, although > in the beginning there have been proponents to use amenity=post_box, > access=private ;-) > This is problematic because it makes impossible to map parking from aerial images. You would need three top level tags - for unknown access status, known as accessible, and known to be private. >> Tagging private showers, kitchens and toilets is unacceptable and should be >> deleted if spotted. >> >> > > > can you point to the rule? What would not be acceptable is tagging them like > the amenities. > I would delete it (and deleted in past) as a blatant privacy violation. There is attempt to define it more explicitly at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
