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

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 13:20:26 BST 2011

2011/4/18 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2. Relation to amenity=parking
> I think this is not hitting the point. You still are implying that
> parkings should better be mapped with this proposal in case hires
> photos are available, you are still reinventing the wheel for parkings
> requiring a site relation (and not specifying which tags should be
> used on it).

sorry, strike through the last sentence, the site relations are well
defined and will work. In some cases they might be overkill, but they
do work and the  suggested tags seem to be fine.

I suggest to change the paragraph about "old" amenity=parking to something like:

"amenity=parking can still be used instead of a site relation,
site=parking. This proposal aims at collecting details for more
complex cases. If you feel that amenity=parking fits better for your
case, simply stick to it."

Keep it short. Why expand on hires imagery? I'd clearly point out in
the proposal that amenity=parking_space might often be additional
objects inside an amenity=parking area.


More information about the Tagging mailing list