[Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot
t.pfeifer at computer.org
Sun Mar 27 11:08:12 UTC 2016
Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/03/27 00:56:
> What I do is
> * highway=service service=driveway
> ways connecting to the real roads and sort of going near where you
> are trying to go when you want to park in the parking lot (carpark),
> just enough to be connected, and trying to pick the places that are
> more important/through roads
Well this is an idea, however it is not what service=driveway was intendend
for. It is another value that data consumers treat as 'minor' since it
means a single little way into a property, and thus does not provide
structure for the parking lot.
> The latter is more or less what your service=parking_access is trying to
> do. But if for example you want to pick someone up at the front door
> of a supermarket, and not park, you'd use them. So parking_access
> really isn't quite right for most of these ways.
Yes, Martin had already pointed out that we should not limit the value to parking.
Tod Fitch wrote on 2016/03/27 05:06:
> It seems to me that any highway=service ought to have a service=* tag.
Ok so you do feel the void.
> Whether the specific case being discussed needs a new service=parking_access tag
> or if service=driveway is okay would be the discussion I’m interested in.
As said, =parking_aisle and =driveway are both minor, we need a classifier for
the major service road.
> To Tom’s point, I think a roads for many commercial areas would have a big grey
> area in deciding between driveway and parking_access as often the route to the
> main entrance and/or loading docks is indistinguishable from the other roads
> in the area that simply service parking.
As =main is occupied by railway mappers, =access is still on the table.
Another idea would be =major, clearly indicating the two classes of service roads.
More information about the Tagging