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

Reply via email to