[Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging
graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 21:20:19 UTC 2019
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 08:53, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
>> A bit messy, but how about
>> amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only
> Big problem right there: you're expanding on the access tag. Some on this
> list will
> take great exception to that. Some editors will take even greater
> exception to it as
> they populate drop-downs from the wiki, so when you map a road the access
> will include yes, no, private, vehicle_charging_only. Which is why the
> proposal invented access:<role>. And even that is pushing things, a
Yes, you're quite right there - I hadn't thought that side of access=
> And this will re-open hostilities in a different argument about the
> undesirability of having all
> those different binary tags instead of charging=car|truck|hgv. Or was it
> the other way
> around that was undesirable? I forget now.
I "think" it was charging=car|truck|hgv arrangement that wasn't liked
because of semi-colons, but you're right - it could be the other way round!
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 21:56, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 01:37, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> amenity=charging _space? Says what it is.
> First problem is that goes against the design of amenity=parking_space.
> will then decide to have amenity=disabled_parking_space rather than use the
> appropriate subtag with amenity=parking_space.
& then, in a few years as electric vehicles become more popular, you'll
have disabled, charging bays! (Which started as a joke but is actually
quite correct - charging bike racks, perhaps?)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging