[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 07/08/2020 08.23, Alessandro Sarretta wrote:
> Dear Matthew,
> 
> On 06/08/20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Please see 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking.
>>
>> 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 
excellent point!

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 
also.

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. 
charging, compact.

(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 
amenity=parking_space?)

-- 
Matthew