[Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

[ET Commands]

> Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:37 +0100
> From: Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
>> these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I
>> looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building , on
>> the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the
>> net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there
>> and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is
>> probably not a building of public interest.
>>
> My approach is that if it's not obvious, I don't tag it.  Because there
> could be a reason it's not
> obvious.  That reason being they don't want the general public to know they
> operate at that
> location.
>
> For example, a one-man-and-a-dog company may operate from home.  It's the
> correspondence
> address, it's listed with the appropriate authority as a company address,
> but they don't want
> people turning up at their door because it's not the kind of business where
> they interact with
> customers/clients/whatever.  So address details only (house name/number,
> etc.), not company
> name.
>
> We need to be wary of the EU's GDPR.  The company name for small businesses
> may be
> a person's name: "Fred Bloggs, Accountant."  You may now be telling people
> where Fred Bloggs
> lives if he works from home.  Not a problem if there's a sign outside
> saying "Fred Bloggs,
> Accountant."   Probably not a problem if he has a web page giving his
> address.  More of a problem
> if you have to ferret the information out.  A big problem if you get the
> information from the WLAN.
>
> Bottom line: if a company makes it clear that they operate at a given
> location then we can map it.
> If they do not make it clear they operate at that location then we
> shouldn't map it.
>
> -- 
> Paul


I agree with everything you said, but I'm not considering these types of 
situations.  I'm only considering buildings where it's obvious they are 
only used as a place of employment, and not a residence.  Mainly I'm 
thinking of buildings visible in aerial photos.

Mark