reword parking access - #3429

[matkoniecz]

primary problem was that publicly owned parking may have private access (say, parking where just president of city is allowed to park) and private parking may have public access (say, paid parking near airport on private grounds)

previous wording was not fully solving it and was still confusing

this rewording tries to clarify what exactly is being asked

Note that especially wording about customers is not 100% fully succesful, but seems the best found so far

[smichel17]

I have been confused before, when answering this quest. However, it's mostly not the fault of the quest; in many situations (when it is not signed), I just don't know what the rules actually are— who owns/maintains the parking lot & whether non-customers are allowed to park there.

I am also not sure I fully understand the distinction between private and customers. Perhaps you could share a more technical definition, and I can try to come up with a good phrasing for that? (edit: answered in #3473 (comment) & below)

[mnalis]

I'm OK with customers => Open only to people visiting a specific place (e.g. customers)

For private, it is currently too similar to yes text, so maybe Forbidden to general public would fit better? (or is it Forbidden for general public?)

Also of note, yes => Open to general public in this PR seems to have lost the explanation (with or without fee), which I remember I had found useful when I was starting with SC for parkings, so others might have too, so I'd vote for reinstating that part if possible.

[matkoniecz]

seems to have lost the explanation (with or without fee),

It was moved to the quest title.

Who may park here? Parking may be free or paid.

[smichel17]

There may be some additional room for improvements, but I think this is pretty good (better than my previous suggestion).

[westnordost]

What is the status of this ticket?

[matkoniecz]

I was unsure which wording would be better and hoped for consensus of English speakers.

On review @smichel17 version seems nicer than mine so I applied it.

Noone protested that it is a poor idea so it should be ready for merging? I would welcome at least one person reviewing it though.

[FloEdelmann]

LGTM (but I'm not a native speaker)

[smichel17]

I was unsure which wording would be better and hoped for consensus of English speakers.

For the future, it would be good to request a review. Even when watching everything, it's sometimes easy to miss that your input would be useful, or required… even on my own PRs!