[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 13:36:03 UTC 2020
On 07/08/2020 08.23, Alessandro Sarretta wrote:
> Dear Matthew,
> On 06/08/20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Please see
>> To summarize: I am proposing the following:
>> - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled
> I've always had some doubts in using parking_space=disabled.
> When I had to map parking spaces specifically designed for disabled
> people (i.e. only disabled people can park there), I've used
> disabled=designated, because it defines (or that is my interpretation)
> an access condition and it applies it to disabled people.
> While parking_space=disabled seems to be more generic.
> But if the default use of parking_space=disables means exactly that only
> disabled people can park there, I'm ok to use it (and change my edits),
> but in this case an explicit description in this sense is required in
> the wiki page.
See? This is *why* we need a page! Thank you for bringing up this
For me, I always look at parking_space=X and capacity:X as being
related. I didn't also propose e.g. parking_space=parent because I can't
recall ever encountering such a thing, but arguably that should be added
That said... now I'm on the fence. FWIW, the amenity=parking page
mentions parking_space=disabled as being supported by at least one
renderer, while one has to do quite some digging for how to use
access:*. Clearly we *do* need to improve the documentation here! Also,
it's less obvious how one would apply access restrictions for e.g.
(If I'm using overpass correctly, it looks like there are ~1k instances
of amenity=parking_space *also* tagged with access:disabled. That's
clearly much less popular than parking_space=disabled. Do you know if
any renderers use access:disabled to affect the rendering of
More information about the Tagging