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

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Sat Mar 19 20:34:02 GMT 2011


I would map the driveway as a way with highway=service +
service=driveway, then areas of parallel or diagonal parking I would
map as an area with tags that depend on how this proposal turns out.
However there is another proposal [1] which would suggests tagging the
appropriate section of the driveway itself with a tag
parking:lane=both/right/left. That seems to have about 17000 usages.
Well maybe I would tag it that way instead of according to this
proposal, I'm not sure.

-Josh

[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking:lane

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM,  <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> If you have a driveway, some parts of which have a secondary lane for parallel parking or diagonal parking, and some sections of which have only a driving lane, how should this be tagged?  This is a common arrangement in parks, from my experience.  In some cases, the parking lane may only be large enough for one or two vehicles.
>
> -------Original Email-------
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
> From  :mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com
> Date  :Sat Mar 19 13:12:53 America/Chicago 2011
>
>
> 2011/3/18 Flaimo <flaimo at gmail.com>:
>> just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation
>> also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps
>> underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i
>> have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and that
>> is the problem. underground parking facilities often have more than
>> one entrance. right now, each entrance is interpreted as its own
>> parking lot. the relation would group them together to one parking
>> facility.
>
>
> Yes, it can be a possibility (and indeed to group nodes a relation
> different then multipolygons is needed), but I'd consider this not the
> better approach, as a simple area will be more useful then a relation
> with some nodes (and easier to map as it would be "mapping as usual"
> instead of "exception"/new relation type). Reasons that the area
> currently is not used a lot this might be:
> - the exact size and position are not known to the mapper (I'd suggest
> to map it approximately, still better then nodes)
> - the renderers currently don't support underground buildings in a
> nice way (will maybe change in the future), maybe even render them not
> distinguishable from surface buildings (which is discouraging).
> - documentation in the wiki suggests that a node is sufficient, or is
> not very specific. (could be changed)
>
> Btw.: you wrote that "nobody" mapped underground parkings as area with
> a layer=-1 but I found that people indeed do it.
> I found 90 nodes with parking='underground' (of which 4 with layer=-1)
> in my extract versus 40 polygons (of which 15 had layer=-1), so almost
> one third of the underground parkings in my region are indeed mapped
> as areas.
>
> This is opposite to all amenity=parking (8000 nodes vs 16000 polygons)
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list