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

Flaimo flaimo at gmail.com
Fri Mar 18 12:07:49 GMT 2011

i think you misread the proposal. you don't tag any capacity tags on a
single parking space. and all common properties can also be defined in
the relation, so no need to tag every single space either. Quote:
"General tags ... defined in the relation are inherited by the
elements inside the collection as long as not mapped otherwise."

the naming for single spaces, as also the usage of the existing
amenity=parking is already in discussion in the comments of the


On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I agree that mapping singular parking spaces is a valid desire,
> I don't agree with the proposed tagging. To avoid confusion (and for
> simplicity) I'd encourage to use a new tag for single lots. It is
> ridiculous to add capacity=1, and other subtags on every single
> parking space inside a bigger parking area. Instead amenity=parking
> would be used for the whole parking facility and another (new) tag
> like parking=lot (or whatever english wording is suitable) would be
> used to indicate single spaces.

More information about the Tagging mailing list