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

Flaimo flaimo at gmail.com
Fri Mar 18 12:50:56 GMT 2011

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/3/18 Flaimo <flaimo at gmail.com>:
> IMHO no need for a relation, as the amenity=parking around it already
> gives you this information. You would "need" the capacity if you won't
> differentiate between "area" (several parking spaces) and "space" (one
> parking space), which I'd encourage (it is the same feature, just
> differing in size/capacity, so better use just one tag instead of 2
> IMHO).

i don't agree with that, because only the physical areas where, for
example a car, can park is a parking space/area, but not for example
the street itself. the current mapping scheme by using a big area over
the whole parking facility is just inaccurate and comes from times
where mappers didn't have satellite images available and couldn't
accurately map such areas. what you actually would need is a
landuse=parking and a amenity=parking. the first describes the whole
parking facility, the second the actual parking spaces.

take this parking lot for example: http://osm.org/go/0JhJenH8g-- . how
should a renderer or routing programm know, that those individual
parking spaces actually are one big lot? that's the whole purpose of
the proposal, so a more accurate mapping of the individual elements is
possible. if you want to use the current inaccurate mapping scheme you
can still do that by not using don't use parking_type and a relation.


More information about the Tagging mailing list