On 03/03/2015 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015 12:07 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt"
<bry...@obviously.com
<mailto:bry...@obviously.com>> wrote:
> I'm opening a discussion about at least mechanically re-tagging
operator:type=private
> into "access=no" or "access=private", so that rendering software can
choose to omit these locations depending on the map purpose.
I'm supportive of this change. Limited access toilets exist, I don't
see why we can't broaden the current definition of the tag to
disambiguate access.
In the case of private toilets, the issue is surely one of privacy.
Within a private boundary, no "amenity" tags should appear at all. Where
a toilet within that boundary is contained either within the main
building or a separate building, then no toilet tags should appear at
all. It is a private matter for the property owners as to the usage of
their structures.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
