[Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 11:15:18 UTC 2015

2015-03-18 11:52 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <janjko at gmail.com>:

> if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and
>> the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag
>> is for "toilet[s] open to the public".
> Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity, although a private one. So why
> not private:amenity=* or maybe amenity:private=* ?

yes, you could do that (I doubt it will be something a lot of mappers will
map, at least not around here), my comment was referring to your question
"we don't want people being routed to the nearest toilet that is actually
inside a power plant. How do we fix this?". If either approach is used (not
mapping at all, or prefixing "private"), than we will not have to fix
anything, I just wanted to point out that already at the status quo,
mapping a private toilet inside a power plant with amenity=toilets is an

> Also that scheme would require really a lot of tags to be added because it
>> seems it doesn't rely on inheritance from encompassing objects.
> What new tags do you speak of? I didn't quite understand. Did you mean we
> should invent an access=* tag that is by it's nature inherited from
> encompassing objects?

It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside
another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150318/4ff380f0/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list