Proposal talk:Library Types
I appreciate the intent behind this proposal to clarify library access by introducing library:users=*. However, I have some concerns about adding a new tagging schema when we already have widely used and recognized tags like operator:type=* and access=* that serve similar purposes.
In particular, I think operator:type=public is already doing a good job in indicating that a library is run for the general public, and it’s used extensively across existing OSM data. Instead of introducing a new tag, improving documentation and examples for operator:type=* and reinforcing its pairing with access=* could avoid schema fragmentation and help standardize current usage.
Also, I believe library:users=* might unintentionally suggest a broader or narrower level of access than is actually true. For instance, many public libraries in the U.S. are technically open to everyone but only offer full borrowing privileges to residents of a particular jurisdiction or consortium. That nuance would be difficult to capture in a simple users=public tag and may be misleading without more context. In these cases, access=permissive or access=members might be more appropriate and more flexible.
A more robust solution might be to refine the use and definitions of existing tags rather than introducing a new one that may not account for edge cases or access restrictions that vary by region.
-Arianna 7/31/25
I second this comment --McCio (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*:for
Is there a reason to use a new suffix that is not in use up to now? On other objects we use ":for" to tag the intended users. Most notably are the almost 100k uses of social_facility:for=* or community_centre:for=*. Even library:for=* is already used 3 times. --Mueschel (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)