[Tagging] definition of the key "office"

[Warin]

On 08-Jul-17 10:35 PM, John Willis wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:01 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How then are 'offices' that do 'sell a service' to the public distinguished? The 'access' key?
> That is the tough question. Apple HQ has visitors, but 99% of their offices (and they have a hundred or so office *buildings* in close proximity to their 2 campuses) are totally 100% access=private - but that might be interpreted as access to the building is private, not that the purpose of the office is private.
>
>> Or are these now to be removed from the key 'office'?
> I think it is reasonable to keep private offices in office=*
>
> Perhaps office:access=customers / visitors / private / destination might be a way to differentiate between the different kinds of business that are in existence, with the default being office:access=customers .
>
> Perhaps a simple office:public=no switch would work, or perhaps I am overthinking it.
>
>
>> There are government offices of both descriptions.
>>
>> Can the 'service' key to be used to describe the type of service offered (public or private)?
> The easy way is to go office=government and let the name=* take care of the local assumptions. An American has an assumptions of services at a city hall or US federal building, and a Japanese person has similar assumptions of what can be done at the City office or the (giant) Prefectural Office. The same would be true for the myriad of other offices as well . Just naming them and identifying them as “government” would allow different renderings and icons, so people could find them in a sea of strip malls and convenience stores.
>
> If we wanted more granularity, I would go office=government (or civic) and then a colon separated subkey with many values. These can be private or public facing - because the government has a ton of buildings - especially in bloated government countries (like Japan).
>
> Civic:passport=yes
> Civic:pension=yes
> Civic: [insert OSM regional system]tax=yes
> Civic:water=yes
> Civic:sewer=yes
> Civic:parks=yes
> Civic=planning=yes
> Civic:zoning=yes
> Civic:council=yes
> Civic:legislative=yes
> Civic:tourism=yes
> Civic:school=yes
> Etc.

In Australia Post offices can do passports .. so rather than using civic I would use service...

service:passport=yes
service:pension=yes

etc.

>
> Buildings or offices handle many different things, it would be good to be able to define what they are without depending on a name field, and in this way, can also be added to non-office buildings for exceptions (some shops let you pay your DMV registration in the US, in Japan you go the city office for domestic Passport services, while you go to a post office or Fedral building in the US - so the mix and assumptions of splits of services must vary wildly around The World.
>

Yep.

I would rather see the 'private' offices rendered in a different way so map users are not confused by them. Hence my desire for tagging to separate them.