This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript building, but serves to welcome visitors.
We had an example in Johannesburg of someone who ran two businesses: car parts and a campground. The reception of the campground was in the car parts shop two blocks away from the campground. If you have this information properly mapped you know that you need the function campground reception, but you look for a car parts shop. Similarly as a general tourist you are not interested in a scout camp, therefore the function should be mapped differently. So the land use may be campground, but the function is not. Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel "tourism" doesn't give any additional information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just "storage_rental" should be sufficient. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable >> right of access supported by law. >> > Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can > walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody > will hassle me. > > Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally > private, but habitually used by the public. > An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks > like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, > and correctly tagged access=permissive. > > The distinction between "open to any member of the public with funds to > pay" and "held in public trust" is somewhat murky in OSM. The "held in > public trust" lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce > compliance with rules. > Also murky is proper tagging for "open to members only, but membership > applications are available to members of the public" access=members is not > established. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
