[Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 13:57:35 UTC 2020

On 09/07/2020 17.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>> Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then
>> access=customers and access=private?
> I like it, but it is a bit tricky as I can walk into many offices without being
> a customer (though typically it is done as someone wants or
> considers being one).

I wonder if we shouldn't discourage this "use case". In my experience, 
while you are correct that corporate offices *do* sometimes get "walk-in 
clients", I think most tend to discourage that sort of thing. Usually an 
office that doesn't have resources dedicated to dealing with walk-ins 
will prefer to set up appointments for a potential customer to visit.

> Maybe something along amenity=customer_service?

If a space does actively encourage walk-ins, that might work. Although...

> Though access=private seems perfectly fine to mark office as internal
> to a company (or covering restricted set of clients).

...I would think that, yes, access=private should probably be used. I 
would expect that even access=private implies it's okay to go there if 
you're invited. (Also, if you're invited, you probably don't need to be 
asking OSM if it's okay to visit.)

As Paul notes, I would also assume that access=private includes service 
workers with a legitimate reason to access the premises; affiliated 
vendors, postal workers, maintenance persons, etc.

p.s. access=designated is *not* a thing; so saith the wiki.


More information about the Tagging mailing list