Please add your opinion and experience here
- This is just an idea: if meals can not be eaten on premises, but they are only offered for takeaway/delivery, it is probably enough to tag the times with delivery=*, and there would be no benefit of adding an extra lunch=*. --Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is commonly possible to take away a lunch menu offering, we can tag it with takeaway=yes. (Actually, 99.5% of venues offer takeaway around here, so I never map it) What I meant above is that I know a place that could be mapped as takeaway=only, delivery=Mo-Fr 11:00-13:00. Because you can not sit down to eat, it is not a dining POI in the regular sense that you would like to frequent, so adding lunch=* may or may not be feasible. Although, if they are open all day long and offer a special lunch offer, it could make sense. I'm undecided as of now. -Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- My new proposal is to introduce lunch:menu:takeaway=yes/no/only and lunch:menu:delivery=yes/no/only. I've now found a restaurant which only offers a lunch menu for takeaway (and with lunch:menu:subscription=only). It is also possible to find delivery-only variants as well. Both takeaway-only and delivery-only can be set at the same time. This would mean that you could either take away the meal or get it delivered, but you can not eat it in place. Bkil (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to apply lunch=only to an amenity=pub which neither offers a' la carte, nor does it operate a kitchen out of lunch hours? Some apply food=no to pubs lacking a kitchen, while others try to signal this simply by ommitting cuisine=* or giving cuisine=no, however a pub that offers lunch could plausibly have cuisine=* specified, hence some other signaling should be used.