On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 22:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > 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. > > 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. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
