[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 13:47:25 UTC 2020

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> amenity=parking  is defined for single parking spaces, adding
> capacity to what seems to be a subtag, would create confusion

Okay... yike. I think I see the problem here (after doing some digging 
into extant usage).

The problem is *you have this backwards*, and possibly (I didn't dig 
into authorship to be able to say for certain) aren't the only one.

To quote the *approved* documentation:

"Use amenity=parking_space to map a single parking space on a parking 
lot. Mapping parking spaces is an addition, not a replacement, to 
mapping a whole parking lot with amenity=parking."

However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using 
amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual 
spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards mapping, 
and it isn't localized to one area.

Such tagging is, however (at least according to both the voted-upon 
usage and AFAIK most if not all existing editors and renderers), wrong.

If I reread your message with that context, however, then your objection 
makes sense *in that context*. If, however, you alter your understanding 
to reflect the *prescribed* usage of amenity=parking and 
amenity=parking_space, I think you will find your objection disappears.

Hope that helps!


More information about the Tagging mailing list