[Tagging] Amenity parking

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/1/12 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for
>> missing information is: missing information.
>
> Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know
> that original "parking" proposal was intended for public parking lots
> on surface.


Excuse me Pieren, for calling you a "wiki-fiddler". I am sure you
acted with good intentions.

I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings "on
surface" (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings,
so also underground and multistorey) and I don't recall that there had
been some agreement (or even thought) if there was a fee or parking
was free of charge (btw.: most _public_ parking lots in dense urban
areas do charge a fee, "public" and "fee" are orthogonal information).

Besides from what was "orginally intended" we have to be aware that it
is for a very long time used for all kinds of parkings, so encouraging
the mappers to omit information by telling them this information would
be implicitly there ("default") is not a good idea IMHO.


> And eidtors and data consumers can consider default
> values when they are clearly documented (e.g. oneway on roundabouts).


Data consumers, especially those dealing with OSM-data, have to decide
how to handle missing information, I agree. But again: that's not a
good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily
provide.

cheers,
Martin