61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri May 18 06:03:09 UTC 2018
On 18/05/18 15:44, osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> "disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki.
"emergency" is not documented either.
As there are over 400 uses of it .. I am tempted to document it .. along with emergency - I have used both.
> I would say setting capacity and capacity:disabled to the same value makes it clear already that the whole parking lot is only for disabled parking, and it follows a documented tagging scheme that relevant data consumers should already be processing correctly.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Willis <johnw at mac.com>
>> Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 13:59
>> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=disabled
>>> On May 10, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common
>> in my country.
>> I know I am just jumping in - but this is also something I am
>> interested in.
>> I know if we have a big parking lot waiting the a few disabled
>> spots along an isle near the store entrance, than
>> capacity:disabled=4 added to a normal parking lot is appropriate.
>> But the instances I am trying to map are large disabled-only lots.
>> They (sometimes) have a gate that the security guard opens,
>> allowing anyone with a disabled plackerd to enter. It is a
>> separately mappable lot near the normal access=customers. Most of
>> them are physically separated from any other parking by kerbs and
>> I really think access=disabled is appropriate for this parking lot.
>> All others are denied.
>> Having to map space-by-space to just show that this *lot* is
>> disabled-only seems weird.
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging