waldo000000 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 21:43:47 GMT 2009
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can
>>park here if you are visiting an associated business".
> That sounds good to me, as well.
So... access=destination seems to have some support. My issue is that
its use doesn't really reflect the wiki definition - which, at the
moment, is only really explained in relation to highways. At the
moment, access=destination is defined as "the public has right of
access only if this is the only road to your destination." For
access=destination to be extended to parking areas, I think this would
need to be changed to something like: "the public may access/use this
entity only if it is necessary to do so in order to get to your
Is this sufficient?
Secondly, Peter asked "How should we tag a private corporate employee
car park ... where there are staff car parks and patient car pars and
they are different." This is a good point, and it can't be expressed
with access=destination. This is another reason why I'm still leaning
towards introducing parking=*, in which case the carpark for staff
would be parking=staff and for patients, parking=customer.
Thoughts? Change the definition of access=destination or introduce parking=*?
More information about the Tagging