On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe the distinction should be whether a place has any area where > visitors/customers are welcome or not. Almost any place will have some > areas with restricted access, and it does not seem helpful to make > distinctions based on the relative size of these. > +1 Similarly, most shops have some areas restricted to staff only - staff toilets, staff canteen (for larger shops), storage, etc. Mapping the entire building (for a detached shop) as the shop is a good first approximation. If somebody wants to later go in there with a laser distance measure so they can micromap it, fine (or maybe not fine if the customer area ends up so small that the label is no longer rendered). There is so much in my area yet to map that I'm not going to bother with fiddly details that the general public wouldn't care about. If ever we map everything in the world as a first approximation, then we can worry about second approximations. Yes, I'm sure you have examples where it was useful (maybe even necessary) to map those finer details, but in most cases the first approximation is good enough. I've mapped the rough locations of the cafe and customer toilets in my local supermarket because it's useful to see on a map that those facilities exist; I haven't split off the staff-only areas as being private. As a first approximation I'd be happy as marking an office public if some part of it handled interactions with customers/clients/ congregants/general public, -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
