Jul 9, 2020, 23:58 by [email protected]: > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 22:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > [email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by >> [email protected]>> : >> >>> >>> Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then >>> access=customers and access=private? >>> >> I like it, but it is a bit tricky as I can walk into many offices without >> being >> a customer (though typically it is done as someone wants or >> considers being one). >> > > "Customers" is rather broad, though. I think some of us apply > access=customers to church car parks. Then again, one could argue they're > buying after-life insurance. If I walk into a shop and look around then > walk out without buying anything, does that mean I wasn't a customer > in the OSM sense? > > I take "customers" to mean "non-employees who may access the > facility because of interactions with the controlling organization." Not > staff. Private means that nobody but staff (excepting emergency > services, plumbers who have been called in to deal with a problem, > etc.) have access. > Good point, I also used access=customers for churchgoers-only parking lot. >> >> Though access=private seems perfectly fine to mark office as internal >> to a company (or covering restricted set of clients). >> > > If there are restrictions on who may be a client, then it's more of > access=designated, or opening hours with "appointment required" or > some such. > > I think we can handle these things with existing tagging. A bit clunky, > but it can be done. Is it worth doing it more explicitly for the sake of > carto or overpass queries? I haven't given it enough thought to > say one way or the other on more explicit handling. > I was thinking mostly about other mappers, access tag on office may be a bit unclear in the intended meaning.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
