[Tagging] Amenity parking

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 23:03:28 GMT 2012

I'd have called it amenity=parking+access=private and then added a way
through the area for pedestrians (tagging individual parking aisles,
probably, plus any footway links to connect it up)

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Simone Saviolo
<simone.saviolo at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com>:
> >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does
> >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that
> >> you can't park there.
> >
> >
> > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that
> > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current
> > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in
> > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you
> > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there.
> Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is
> needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is
> phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact
> that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking,
> it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good
> example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it).
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> Ciao,
> Simone
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120111/0f2e7138/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list