I see private charging stations at objects like chalets which are a feature of the amenity and think that it would be “wrong” to map them as node on the map because they can only be used by tenants so I propose using charging_station=yes to indicate that an amenity offers this to it’s “customers”.
Taginfo already indicates ~85 instances of this tag.
From first glance, it might also make sense when one knows that an amenity/building/etc. has a charging point but one can’t necessarily accurately map it’s location (say, if satellite imagery doesn’t yet show it).
Just to note, there was recently a long discussion about the charging stations. The result was an approved proposal to define a new tag of
man_made=charging_point to better map an individual charging point.
I wonder if
charging_point=yes might therefore be more consistent?
Though I think the idea is that
man_made=charge_point should always be located inside an
amenity=charging_station so I’m not too sure! Perhaps
charging_station=yes is more adaptable in case an amenity/building/etc has multiple chargers available.
Without details like is it a charging station for ecars or ebicycles this tag is rather limitated.
As @chris66 says, we would need at least a distinction between bicycles and cars. On the other hand, bicycle charging should never be a problem in amenities like apartments or hotels. So, we might be able to restrict this tag to car charging stations.
But I highly recommend to not add any more details (socket, output, capacity) to this tag because it would make tagging way too complicated with yet another namespace prefix. This information should always be on a dedicated node, marked as access=private or access=customers.
Thanks for the valuable input to this point.
Since the update of the charging_station / charging_point tagging it would seem that charging_point=yes would be a better choice for my “problem”.
I will wait a bit before continuing with this and encourage more points of view to chime in