[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool

john at jfeldredge.com john at jfeldredge.com
Sun Nov 14 20:50:04 GMT 2010

Read what I wrote.  My suggestion was for use IF a parking lot was restricted to car-poolers only.

-------Original Email-------
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
From  :mailto:rodolphe at quiedeville.org
Date  :Sun Nov 14 14:16:07 America/Chicago 2010

Le 14/11/2010 20:33, john at jfeldredge.com a écrit :
> If, however, a parking lot were to be restricted for car-pooling use only, it would be reasonable to tag it as access=carpool or access=carpooling.

Why do you make a relation between carpooling and access limitation ?
The carpooling utilization is not exclusive, you can park your car
without doing carpooling. So IMHO the access key is a mistake.

> -------Original Email-------
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool
> From  :mailto:rodolphe at quiedeville.org
> Date  :Sun Nov 14 08:35:02 America/Chicago 2010
> Le 14/11/2010 12:15, Nathan Edgars II a écrit :
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2010/11/13 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>>>> On 13 November 2010 21:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> access no is completely wrong IMHO, better might be access=private,
>>>>> which also might be wrong, as the access might be allowed, but not to
>>>>> park there.
>>>> access=destination ?
>>> My point was that access is about the accessibility while here it
>>> might be needed a tag to indicate who is allowed to park.
>> We use access=private for private parking lots, do we not?
> No parking where you can do carpooling are not private, you can park
> without doing carpooling too.
> Regards

Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre
Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre
SIP/XMPP : rodolphe at quiedeville.org

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

More information about the Tagging mailing list