On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 10:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > Public toilet: amenity=toilets > Private toilet: not tagged (so not tagged > like a public one) > > I am unable to link to well tagged private > toilets as in this case private tagging > is to not map it. > > A similar logic would have private roads not mapped. Yet they are. > Same for private buildings, farm yards, woods, beaches and so on. >
I am happy with leisure=garden + access=private for private gardens. An argument elsewhere in the thread refers to the small size of some private gardens but I'd class that under "too small to bother mapping" not "must not map because it's private." Even so, I do not find that equating roads, gardens and toilets compelling. Not as stated so far. We map private roads and gardens because they are visible in aerial imagery and/or street level imagery. We don't do so because the general public can necessarily access them but because they may be navigational landmarks. Also, delivery drivers may make use of private roads in order to deliver to the destination served by that road. We do not map private toilets because not only are they not accessible to the public but also because they are not navigational landmarks. Let's not go down the route of saying that because we map private X we can also map private Y. It's about more than just public/private. It's also about visibility. That said, I don't have any objection to a mapper adding his/her own private toilet just for fun. Not very useful to anyone, but I don't feel a need to invoke the mapping police on anyone that does it. Mapping somebody else's private toilet without permission is another matter. But it might be sensible if carto rendered private toilets VERY faintly. :) -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
