[OSM-newbies] Rendered two ways; why?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's probably because some bored nitwit looking at the aerial
> photography observed what appears to be a paved area with little lines

I do a lot of this kind of stuff, fyi.

> The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> in a business park) is handled with access=* tags.

...

> The church property perimeter is tagged on the map, and the parking
> area described is fully contained within that property. Why would one
> assume that a parking area contained within the church property to be
> a public parking space?

Because the distinction of "public" vs "private" doesn't come close to
conveying the complexities of actual access in the real world. Truly
"private" carparks don't really exist: a parking space on someone's
private property where only they and their family park. And from there
on, there's an almost continuous gradation of levels of
privateness/publicness all the way up to fully public: no one has any
claim over it whatsoever.

Also, I don't tags things access=private much because they render so
horribly, with pink blobs all over them, in Mapnik. Also, FYI.

A much better scheme would be something like:

amenity=parking
parking=customer
parking=employee
parking=commercial
parking=members
parking=guests
...

Steve