> If you read through those threads...

If you mean to imply that I have not fully read through those threads, that is incorrect, and I am not sure what I have done to deserve assumption of bad faith.

> I think including the parking lot that's outside a business within the business' feature doesn't make any sense--is the optometrist or grocer doing their business in the parking lot?

In the case of the optometrist, I am inclined to agree, but I can think of counterexamples. The local Hy-Vee sells garden goods in the parking lot, and the local McDonald's carries mobile orders out to the parking lot. Much of the business of an auto salesperson occurs in the parking lot. The opposite also seems true: if we return to the school grounds example, I would say school occurs in the playground, but I am not sure that it also occurs in the parking lot and drop-off lane.

> If you want to micromap who can park in what parking lot, access=customers seems like the correct tag.

This tag helps, but it does not resolve ambiguity in all cases. The operator key does, but as I noted, it seems to duplicate information that could be inferred from the surrounding area. (Perhaps this is the expected approach because that inference is relatively difficult.)

If there is something specific that you expect from me, such as converting these areas back to points or only tagging in a way that is supported by the "How to tag" section of a wiki page, then I will do so as soon as possible. However, I would prefer that you state your expectations directly. I have difficulty interpreting implied instructions.

I wouldn't say "recommended", but I was influenced by these forum threads:
- [Tag business to building or property?](https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tag-business-to-building-or-property/124983)
- [Node or Way for businesses](https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/node-or-way-for-businesses/124757)

Based on the discussion in those threads, I agree with the idea that editors should rarely merge businesses with buildings. Trying to tag buildings on the National Register of Historic Places heavily influenced my opinion. There are many buildings on the NRHP whose current purpose is completely different from their historic purpose. A good example here is the Union Depot, which was a rail station a very long time ago but has been used as a restaurant for as long as I can remember. Tagging them both on one building didn't seem correct.

I do know the general recommendation is to use a point instead, but candidly, I feel like an area provides more information when I _know_ specific parking lots are associated with specific businesses, and it feels cleaner than putting an operator on each parking lot. If the business ever changes, one would have to make sure to update the operator for anything associated, which could easily be missed.

I can certainly go back and convert to points if there is a recommendation I've missed, but I didn't find any during my research before this changeset... a lot of the discussion seemed to center around the pros and cons of points vs. building areas rather than points vs. building areas vs. approximate property outlines.