On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 07:36, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every > reason to adopt > it. Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm > if it represents the > actual situation on the ground better than having access=yes, > access=private or no > access tag at all. It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and > doesn't break the > semantics of the access=* tag. > > I can understand (just) people arguing about whether it should be > access=adherents or > access=adherent, whether it should be adherents or customers, or something > like that. But > arguing about whether or not we should tag the access restriction at all > seems silly. What harm > does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to be the > case)? >
Agree entirely (but I think that =adherents sounds better than =adherent :-)), but, as in most things, there will always be occasional awkward ones. As anyone who is involved in checking family history knows, the Church of the Latter Day Saints has probably the biggest collection of family history records in the World. Their family history libraries are usually located in a corner of their church building, & are open to the general public, but the public are not allowed into the church proper, so that would need a combination of access=adherents on the building & also access=customers (?) on the library room/s. Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
