[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 12:51:28 UTC 2020

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled
> that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it

Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the 
least "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpose here would be just 
to bless the tag with "status=approved" rather than "status=de-facto".

>> - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified parking
>> lot, by introducing parking_space=motorcycle and
>> capacity:motorcycle
> amenity=parking  is defined for single parking spaces, adding capacity to what seems to be a subtag, would create confusion

Huh? There is clearly some miscommunication happening here.

The capacity and capacity:* tags apply to amenity=parking, which is used 
to map entire *lots*. Capacity is clearly meaningful in this context.

Individual parking *spaces* are not supposed to be tagged 
amenity=parking, they are supposed to be tagged amenity=parking_space.

I fail to see the confusion. Maybe you were misreading the proposal? (I 
am not at this time proposing capacity or capacity:* tags for 
amenity=parking_space. That tag *can* have a capacity¹, but it's 
arguable whether it *should*, or whether it's preferable to not map 
multi-capacity spaces.)

(¹ ...and iD thinks it should have capacity=1, while JOSM disagrees. 
I've been tagging them thusly, but that's arguably an iD bug that should 
be fixed, in which case I'd happily go back and nuke all my capacity=1.)


More information about the Tagging mailing list