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

Flaimo flaimo at gmail.com
Fri Mar 18 12:33:57 GMT 2011


> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:53:01 +0100
> From: Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>        <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
> Message-ID: <4D83479D.5090304 at tobias-knerr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I do not see a good reason to use amenity=parking on the individual
> parking spaces within a larger parking area. Instead, I would prefer to
> keep using amenity=parking a closed way that covers the entire parking
> area and contains the individual parking spaces. I would then use a
> different tag for individual parking spaces (parking_lot=yes if there
> are no better ideas). Besides of requiring one tag less per feature, it
> would not contradict current usage of amenity=parking, and would make it
> a bit easier for renderers that want to ignore individual parking spaces
> (which is a sensible cartographic decision for many use cases).

my original version used new tags for all three elements, but a user
in the comments suggested to explicitly use amenity=parking for
compatibility reasons and to slowly force renderers to adapt this
mapping scheme.


> I also suggest to allow nodes for parking spaces. Areas are the obvious
> choice *if* you use high-res satellite imagery. But without imagery, it
> still makes sense to map individual parking spaces for special interest
> groups from surveyed information. This is where a node is the
> appropriate solution until more detailed data becomes available.
> Accepting both nodes and areas to accommodate different detail levels of
> data is good practice for other features, e.g. those in the shop and
> amenity categories.

good argument. i changed the proposal accordingly.



More information about the Tagging mailing list