[Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

[Mateusz Konieczny]

May 11, 2020, 13:43 by dieterdreist at gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by >> dieterdreist at gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski <>>> jarek at piorkowski.ca>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
>>>> public parking then you also need to know to check for
>>>> access!=private.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking with amenity=parking is similar to tagging the shower in your home as amenity=shower or your kitchen sink as amenity=drinking_water. 
>>>
>> Not really. Private parking are worth mapping - it is stiil useful for orientation, data analysis, 
>> QA (private parkings vs unmapped) etc
>>
>
>
> right, but this doesn't mean it must have the same main tag, in particular "amenity" as key. For example we do not map private post boxes (your incoming mail) the same as those from the postal service for outgoing mail, although in the beginning there have been proponents to use amenity=post_box, access=private ;-)
>
This is problematic because it makes impossible to map parking from aerial images.
You would need three top level tags - for unknown access status, known as accessible,
and known to be private.

>> Tagging private showers, kitchens and toilets is unacceptable and should be deleted if spotted.
>>
>>
>
>
> can you point to the rule? What would not be acceptable is tagging them like the amenities.
>
I would delete it (and deleted in past) as a blatant privacy violation.

There is attempt to define it more explicitly at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200511/8d4ff8cf/attachment.htm>