[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Anton Klim tohaklim at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 10:20:24 UTC 2018

Indeed, I am myself somewhat opposed to a qualifier for each type of lounge
out there in the main key.
Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many
conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably
won't work.
In light of this, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, airport_lounge might be
a better option.

I could also potentially see the original amenity=lounge key, used with a
lounge=airport/rail/etc key.


2018-06-12 0:37 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> sent from a phone
> On 11. Jun 2018, at 23:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10. Jun 2018, at 13:28, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If proposed as amenity=waiting_room I'd vote for it.  If proposed as
> amenity=lounge I'd vote against it.
> >
> >
> > +1
> taking it back, sorry. We could probably have all three, waiting room/area
> and lounge.
> Maybe waiting_lounge? airport lounge has the disadvantage that it doesn’t
> cover the same concept in train stations. Unlike airports it is not common
> there, but some (major) train stations have those lounges, usually access
> is limited (e.g. first class ticket, or some kind of membership in a
> frequent client program).
> While I agree that lounge alone can be ambiguous, the qualifier ideally
> should not be repeating the context but describe the concept, -0.6 to
> airport_lounge.
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180612/3f592dbf/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list