[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 12:21:29 BST 2011

2011/4/11 Flaimo <flaimo at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure if it is a good idea to put all these new tags into the
>> amenity namespace. Amenities are "general" features (e.g. mapnik tries
>> to render all of them) and the proposed tags like parking_space would
>> in a complete mapping state clutter the map.
> i think, that it doesn't really matter under which key parking spaces
> and entrances are mapped. which one would you suggest? the parking key
> is already taken.

OK, that is a point. Well, keep it in amenity then.

> while you could use amenity=parking_space for itself,
> amenity=parking_entrance doesn't make much sense without the context
> of the relation which holds the information of the actual
> (underground) parking facility. if you want to use

you could add it to nodes part of amenity=parking, and there would be
no need for a relation.

> amenity=parking_space without a relation, you could do so, but then
> you could stick with amenity=parking anyway.

I think we _should_ stick with amenity=parking. It is the most often
used amenity tag with 546 695 occurences. You should not try to
deprecate it. Instead I would welcome amenity=parking_space for the
net parking area (nodes or areas, in the case of bigger parkings
inside an area amenity=parking, where the name would go to this outer
area) allowing for additional detail like number of lots, dedicated
disabled parking, etc.


More information about the Tagging mailing list