[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 08/12/19 10:43, Martin Scholtes wrote:
> 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.

It should be understood from the access tag that it excludes all others.

>> 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.

Then I would leave this out. It is open to all, excludes no one.

>> 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.

If it is only, only, for car pool parking then an access tag such as access=carpool would do.