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

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Mar 18 13:09:59 GMT 2011

2011/3/18 Flaimo <flaimo at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/3/18 Flaimo <flaimo at gmail.com>:
> 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.

Yes, but the streets that are exclusively used to access the parking
space are part of the parking. The latter is what amenity=parking is
about, (see also in combination with parking=surface, underground,
multilevel), the first is what you want to tag.

> 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.

no. It is not mapping the actual parking space but the whole parking facility.

> 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.

no, you don't need a landuse, see above.

> 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?

They can't know, because the mapping is not "correct". But pointing at
mapping errors does not prove anything.

> the proposal, so a more accurate mapping of the individual elements is
> possible.

Yes, and as said in my first post, I second this, but encourage you
not to misuse amenity=parking for it but rather use something like
parking_space or whatever.


More information about the Tagging mailing list