[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

Martin Scholtes mail at martin-scholtes.de
Sat Dec 7 23:43:51 UTC 2019

Am 07.12.2019 um 09:33 schrieb Warin:
> park_drive=no for parking of customers only or private.
> These should already be tagged with an access tag to say this .. so it
> is redundant?
This form should not be explicitly stated but rather understood as
implicit values. Similar to highway=footway, footway=designated implies.
> park_drive=yes where car pool parking is ok.
> In my country this is the default. Unless there is some time limit
> (and that limit would apply to all) then it is ok to park there for
> any reason. The time limit should be indicated by some other tag .. so
> this is redundant?
After a lot of thinking I will =yes out, because it is already covered
with designated or informal.
> park_drive=informal for car pool parking that is neither allowed nor
> forbidden??? No. It cannot be both 'not allowed' and 'not forbidden'.
by =informal we mean that there is no explicit sign for parking and
forming or driving in carpools, similar to =yes. For example, there are
parking lots that are often used to form carpools, but are not intended,
so parking lots for hikers.
> park_drive=designated for car pool parking only?? Then it is an access
> tag like access=customers.
=designated describes explicitly designated parking spaces at, for
example, motorway junctions that are public.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Martin Scholtes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3935 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191208/2a344b2d/attachment.bin>

More information about the Tagging mailing list