[Tagging] Amenity parking

Erik Johansson erjohan at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 07:22:32 GMT 2012


On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, 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)
>

This is IMHO.

To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all
practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it.
There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that
just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit.

access seems to mean that access is private or permissive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120112/bbc18158/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list