[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
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