[Tagging] Amenity parking

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 09:17:55 GMT 2012

access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an
amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing
else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private,
but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's
unlikely to catch on.

access tags normally modify ways (as opposed to areas), and for routing
purposes you need to have ways across the land if the data is to be usable
(just around the periphery if there's no obvious paths across the middle).
So put in appropriate access tags (eg access=private+foot=yes) on the ways.

If the area is (for example) a field on which a handful of people have
parking rights, and never occupy more than a fraction of it, I'd have said
just mark a small parking area where they're most likely to park, and don't
put parking tags on the field as a whole.


On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120112/44173815/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list