[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpool

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 13 01:05:00 GMT 2010


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:37 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 November 2010 10:16, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>> Why not amenity=parking with access=no and hov=yes using existing tags?
>
> hov doesn't mean much to me, and it doesn't indicate the minimum
> number of passengers needed, wouldn't amenity=parking, passengers=X be
> more meaningful?

Are there actually parking lots that are marked for a certain number
of passengers? Do they enforce this at the entrance to the parking
lot? Or are these simply commuter parking lots that are commonly used
by carpoolers who then double or triple up to use the HOV lanes (and
thus each parked car had only the driver)?



More information about the Tagging mailing list