[Tagging] parking

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 9 07:19:38 GMT 2009

Steve Bennett wrote:

>I think the goal is to give broadly useful information rather than to map
>all the subtle nuances. If I was driving somewhere and looking for a park, 
>would first want to know about "parking=customer" locations, failing that,
>"parking=public", failing that, "parking=commercial". It might even be
>helpful to know about "parking=authorised" places, shown as a P with a 
>through or something, to know not to try and park there.
>I wonder if there be some kind of "parking=private" for things like parking
>spaces near apartment buildings, or spots inside company grounds, but there
>may not be enough distinction against "authorised".

I agree that useful is a good criteria, but there are times when 
"authorised" is not adequate. For example, different parking areas are 
authorized for different functional entities. Maybe I should know if my 
authrorization qualifies for a particular area, but there's a significant 
probability that I may not.

>One question though: is this really the best use of the "parking=" tag? How
>would you add information like motorcycle vs car parking,
>underground/covered/openair, secure/nonsecure...
I would consider openair as the default. How to handle the others needs 
thought. However,


There is a proposal in voting right now, under property features for 
"covered=yes" to apply to nodes, ways and areas such as parking. Since I'm 
the sponsor, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at it, and vote. 
I'd like to see a definitive decision on it rather than have it die due to 
lack of interest :-( So far, a total of 7 votes.



More information about the Tagging mailing list