[Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Wed Sep 12 07:49:37 UTC 2018


In my use of the site relation, i try to add a polygon to indicate the
perimeter (when possible) like in the proposal of the site relation (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site) and i use the
"amenity=parking" polygon for the site=parking. And then i add everything
that is inside the "site perimeter" like parking_space, services roads and
parking_aisle, vending machine, parking_entrance (if underground), ...

For underground parking, i tend to only put amenity=parking on the site
relation and don't draw a polygon (except when it match exactly a building
outline, then i use it as perimeter).

Le mar. 11 sept. 2018 à 21:00, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238eee at gmx.com> a écrit :

> Hello,
>
>
>
> When micro-mapping parkings, amenity=parking_space are to be brought into
> a relation (type=site and site=parking). [1]
>
>
>
> But I find it strange the "outer" object (i.e. amenity=parking) doesn't
> need to be added to the relation.
>
>
>
> I would have expected something like inner / outer in multipolygon
> relations to indicate to which parking the paking space belongs. [2]
>
>
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space
>
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180912/d8bb407c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list