[Tagging] airport check in counters

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Apr 12 23:25:21 UTC 2019


For campgrounds, campsites and tourism=caravan_site the most commonly used
tag is camp_site=reception, over 1000 uses but it was only part of an old
proposal.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:01 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are 457 uses of booking=* in the data base. I have used it on
> camping sites that require seasonal booking.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abooking
>
> Humm reception and checkin as the same?
>
> I did propose amenity=reception .. failed as some did not want it as
> amenity ... I use it.
>
> Should I use it for check in? Possibly.
> So amenity=reception for airport check ins.. ??? Any other ideas?
>
>
> On 13/04/19 08:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 21:49, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 10:13, bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, I was just considering whether we could unite related features
>>> like ticket booths/ticket check/vending/reception/information
>>> desk/check-in for various places like camp_site, hotel, motel,
>>> guest_house, school, office, mall, community_centre, sports_centre,
>>> events_venue, cinema, theatre, music_venue, nightclub, public
>>> transport, etc.
>>>
>>
> You could probably get away with classifying almost all of those as
> check_in, or maybe reception? For most of those venues, though,"reception"
> would be immediately inside the front door, so there wouldn't really be a
> need to show where it is.
>
> An exception to that would be airports, where your ticket desk/s can be
> located almost anywhere, & you'd then also have to specify that this is the
> check-in for Airline A, that one is Airline B & so on
>
> Such merging may cause problems for (some) editors.  If you can guarantee
>> that all
>> camp sites, hotels, motels, etc. can potentially have any of ticket
>> booths, vending, check in,
>> etc. then that's fine.  E.g., if A could have any of X, Y or Z; B could
>> have any of X,  Y or Z;
>> C can have any of X, Y or Z; etc. that isn't a problem.  The editor's
>> code just handles it as
>> a list of X, Y and Z can apply to A, B and C
>>
>> What would be a problem is if A can only have X or Y; B can only have Y
>> or Z; and C can only have
>> X or Z.
>>
>
> Yes, we see this with some of the camping grounds we regularly go to. Some
> have offices / kiosks, where you check in on arrival; some have no check in
> requirements at all - you just arrive, pick a (unmarked) spot & set up;
> while others have to be booked online before you go.
>
> These could probably all be covered by check_in=yes / no / online_only,
> possibly together with a bookings=(url)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190413/697c6cae/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list