Talk:Proposed features/Luggage locker
Yes for amenity=locker, no for amenity=luggage_locker
I don't see any difference between the two besides their size. As described in your two proposals, amenity=luggage_locker would permits the storage of larger items (luggage) and amenity=locker would be designed to host smaller items. This seems redundant to me. Actually, a lot of lockers I came across offers different sizes in the same location, a few for luggage and the rest for purses, in which case both tags should be employed on two separate nodes. Not very practical. I think it'll be much easier and clearer to have only one tag amenity=locker. The size of the locker can be described by other tags, not the amenity one. Freayd (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the name by itself is wrong. Locker sounds like its from a gym or highschool. amenity=luggage_storage might be more descriptive (assuming we are talking about storage lockers in a public transport setting (or similar, like a mall or amusement park)) --EnturJohanWiklund (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I think using the more general term "locker" can fit more use cases than just luggage locker. It might never be used, but if several type of lockers happen to be distinguished, then we could use the key locker (eg. locker=luggage) to describe what is being stored. Anyway, amenity=luggage_locker is probably good enough. My main point is to have only one amenity tag (either locker or luggage_locker) and to describe different sizes or content with other tags. Two amenity tags are likely to create confusion and misusage. Freayd (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes for amenity=luggage_storage, no for amenity=luggage_locker|locker
I think that amenity=luggage_storage should be accepted, because it is definitely more general, descriptive and fits all cases.