Proposal talk:Access key

Using yes and master?

Two of your examples use both yes and master:
> A toilet with a Eurokey system: `amenity=toilets + access_key=yes + access_key=master + access_key:operator=eurokey`
> A parking space for disabled people with a RADAR key system: `amenity=parking_space + access_key=yes + access_key=master + access_key:operator=radar` Nadjita (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

> yes, that is right. We chose to do it this way to be able to map all available options - even the ones we are missing to think about at the moment. We could also change it to access_key=private, access_key=master, access_key=no for example. How would you tag a place that uses a key but it is not private and not a master key, such as locked toilets at petrol stations? --Isi17 (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot tag something with access_key=yes and access_key=master at the same time, which is what I'm pointing out. If you are giving examples, make sure they are correct. Nadjita (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it different from centralkey?

You're saying that access_key=* "offers a more generic and scalable solution" than centralkey=*, yet I don't see anything new that can't be done with centralkey=* by introducing something like centralkey:type=master/unknown for unknown systems, and officially allowing centralkey=yes/no (which is already in use). A centralkey:wikidata=* has always been possible.
How exactly is access_key=master + access_key:operator=eurokey solving anything that centralkey=eurokey + centralkey:type=master cannot solve? You don't even need the Template:Tey if centralkey=* has any value other than yes, because anything but centralkey=yes already implies centralkey:type=master.

Right now, it feels more like you want to rename centralkey=*, because you dislike the naming. Fair enough, but is it enough reason to break all possibly existing data consumers? Nadjita (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We wanted to show an interest in the discussion from the last (centralkey) proposal where people said "centralkey" is a germanicism and would not be understood or used by the English speaking community. We then tried to find a word, that describes the feature of a (central) locking system. We as wheelmap.org want to use this tagging system mainly for toilets that use the eurokey or RADAR key, but we want to find a way to tag this without missing other systems. What term would you suggest? --Isi17 (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A "central key" gives you access to doors with a "central cylinder". A central cylinder is often used in common areas of big apartment houses (attic, garages, main door, laundry), so that everyone can access their own apartment, plus garages, main door, attic, and probably toilets. You can have several areas in an apartment complex that have different central cylinder locks, and a single key can give you access to more than one of these areas. This type of key won't allow you access to other people's apartments, though.
A "master key" on the other hand, is a key that will unlock each and every door in a building. It's a central key, and more.
I just wanted to explain the actual meaning, so we're all on the same page. But: even if "centralkey" was a germanicism (I guess translated from "Zentralschlüssel", which would be translated to "master key". But having the term "master" or even "slave" in a tag is prooobably even worse than a "germanicism", plus the word is actually wrong, because these keys don't give you access like a master key), this would not be strong enough for me to accept what appears to be mainly a renaming proposal. We have much worse tags (highway=steps anyone?), and unless you're adding something on top of "just a new name", I don't see this proposal passing. Nadjita (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Rework and reaccomodate

• access_key=* : As mentioned by others, this has no significant difference with centralkey=* to offer substantial improvements. There's already a dozen authentication:key=* . It can be augmented by authentication:key=centralkey . This allows continued use of centralkey=* with it. ( barrier:*=* is only suitable for barrier=* )
• access_key=no : This is locked=no ?
• access_key:operator=* : Eurokey, and RADAR, aren't *:operator=* . They are a *:brand=* , network=* / *:network=* , or *:model=* etc.

—— Kovposch (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to overlap with centralkey=*, and would lead to tagging fragmentation. I also don't think the term "access key" is suitable to describe the concept well (any key is for locking and unlocking, and most of the times it is about access, while the characteristics here are that the keys are universal and distributed or issued to a certain group of people who meet the requirements). --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comment above at "How is it different from centralkey?" --Isi17 (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)