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

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 09:49:15 UTC 2018

You are right in that in regards to KISS, i was not seeing it as being more
complex but easier to interact with the parking_space elements via editor
(but that was personal preference for sure). I was also following the
description here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking where you can
see schema (in the example category) with grouping of the parking relation
like a "tree" (i found it easier to understand by human editor than just
keeping it via geographic relation only). After all, site relation is not
meant to be rendered, but only to be used as *an administrative tool . *

But i recognize that i have probably over-extended the definition with its
use for the "simple" parking. Do you think i should remove the relation for
the 'simple' parking that are "only on the surface" and all contained into
the amenity=parking polygon ?

For multi-site parking (like for mall or large venue place where parking
can be separated by highways, buildings, ...), i still see it as a good use
as it avoid the duplication of most tags (opening_hours...) and indicate
that they are all the parking for that particular place (without relying on
the name or something like that).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180914/bfd5b402/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list