[Tagging] Why isn't the amenity=parking object part of the relation ?
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 10:02:17 UTC 2018
2018-09-14 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lionel Giard <lionel.giard at gmail.com>:
> 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 ?
if you can express everything you want with a polygon, you should not use a
site relation, IMHO.
> 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).
you can also in this case (provided the parkings are not mapped as nodes)
do it with a multipolygon-relation.
Here is an example for a site with a parking where you can't use a
multipolygon (as the shop is a node), ignore the "role" name, I just made
it up and it is not standard, and there are no other tags on the site for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging