I would go one step further, an say that there is essentially no functional definition of the difference between a generic "motel" and a generic "hotel". In fact many of the "hotel"s I have stayed in, mainly in the USA, were "motel"s according to the criteria given in the proposal. What one could argue about is, to put the distinction in the building key: there is certainly a typical building design of many hotels and motels (again mainly in the USA) that would match the building and layout criteria listed in the proposal. But these refer to the building not to the function. building=motel would be the correct description of a rather clear building style. But this would most likely cause more confusion than clarity as something as 75% of al hotels (again in the USA) would have to be tagged: building=motel and tourism=hotel Certainly trying to create a functional description of the difference between hotel and motel, apart from the possibility to park in front of the room, is rather difficult. Look at the list of criteria with an critical eye, and most of them are not so clear as one woul need them to be:
1. Short term accommodation, particularly for people travelling by car: nearly all traveller today travel by motor_vehicle 2. mostly serving single night - applies to many hotels as well 3. convenient parking for motor cars at or close to the room-that is very often true for "hotels" as well 4. thus the building itself is usually not of a high rise kind - most of the hoels I syayed in in the USA would not have more than two floors. 5. built to an inexpensive design - depends entirely on the price level 6. motel is usually positioned next to major roads and intersections - many chain hotels there as well 7. usually outside residential areas and thus nearby tourism attractions may not be available. - again valid for many hotels as well 8. Motels may sometimes but not always provide a number of additional guest services such as a restaurant, breakfast service or swimming pool - agan not a valid distinction. 9. it is best accessed using a motor vehicle (placement uncorrelated from public transport) 10. not many tourist attractions nearby - valid for many hotels as well 11. not many leisure services on premise other than food - valid for many hotels as well 12. high vehicle traffic route/intersection nearby - valid for many hotels as well 13. built on low cost land (nearby industrial centers, on the perimeter or outside of residential areas) - valid for many hotels as well 14. at least as many parking places as rooms (or even better if more than the lodging capacity) - valid for many hotels as well 15. cost saving building construction and interior design - valid for many hotels as well 16. low rise building - valid for many hotels as well 17. people check in ad-hoc without much planning ahead - difficult to verify and valid for many hotels as well 18. people usually plan to stay here as few nights as possible - valid also for budget hotels, and not valid for upmarket motels 19. cost is affordable to passer-by motorists who just need a little rest with few requirements - this is just a question of loction 20. doors of many rentable rooms open to the parking lot instead of an internal corridor - tru also for many hotels 21. some extra services are available on premise or nearby that are especially valuable to passer by motorists, like fuel or fluid refilling, truck & trailer parking and servicing, electronics or tire shop, - many motels I have used did not have these 22. it is open all year round (there is less seasonality in usage compared to hotels, some guest houses even close down for part of the year) - I do not know about this one, this may be a candidate for distinction. 23. it is sometimes also operating a camping site on premise or on a neighboring plot of land - as you say, this is "sometimes" the case, but again this not a decisive criterion. There is another aspect: your service/quality level distinction by which would mean that many lower-star hotels may get tagged in OSM as motels and that my not be welcome by the operator of the place. To me it seems the easiest to leave it as is, and I think in many cases its just boils down to copying the type from the name plate. Volker
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
