[Tagging] me Di get y st, Vol 13 , Issue 49

Alan Grant alangrant72 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 20:02:08 UTC 2020


Long time No. P. 0.....?pxo.llkjkt


On Fri 7 Aug 2020, 21:55 , <tagging-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>         tagging at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         tagging-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Tobias Knerr)
>    2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Tobias Knerr)
>    3. Re: Electric scooter parking (Jan Michel)
>    4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Jan Michel)
>    5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Philip Barnes)
>    6. Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops (德泉 談)
>    7. Re: Electric scooter parking (Matthew Woehlke)
>    8. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types (Matthew Woehlke)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:11:31 +0200
> From: Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
> Message-ID: <d88f3172-6c18-1533-881f-2fbba4bd9b54 at tobias-knerr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking
>
> I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions:
>
> Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's
> supposed to mean parking spaces for compact cars, but the first Google
> result for me is some parking system for trucks at motorways. Better to
> avoid the ambiguity.
>
> Also, I guess we need to decide if we need to be able to map something
> that fits more than one class, like a takeaway parking spot reserved for
> users with disabilities. If so, we could consider a solution something
> like parking_space:takeaway=yes, or a clearly defined meaning for
> semicolon-separated values.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:13:24 +0200
> From: Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
> Message-ID: <8741af4a-79d9-33f9-1cb6-3f09144458c9 at tobias-knerr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 07.08.20 15:36, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I've always felt that using "disabled" as an access _key_ (i.e.
> disabled=* or access:disabled=*) was somewhat at odds with the usual
> logic of putting groups of users in the _value_ of access tags.
>
> I like that parking_space=disabled sidesteps this issue.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:13:03 +0200
> From: Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking
> Message-ID: <116a04ad-52ba-2c38-e3e9-675956709788 at mueschelsoft.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 07.08.20 19:09, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> > <tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
> >     Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by baloo at ursamundi.org
> >     <mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org>:
> >         On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> >         <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>
> >         wrote:
> >             amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes
> >             seems like a terrible idea to me
> >         Why?  That's actually pretty good.  amenity=parking is for motor
> >         vehicle parking, electric scooters are a part of that.
> >     Mostly because it will break all current users of amenity=parking
> >     and at least for me place to place
> >     electric scooter is not the same object as a car parking (in the
> >     same way as bicycle parking
> >     is not the same object as a car parking).
> > I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is
> > already broken in advance.
>
> +1 from my side.
>
> It might be useful to have two different top-level amenity tags for
> parking lots for large and small vehicles, but not one tag for every
> type of vehicle.
>
> Any new tagging scheme must be able to support parking lots that are
> dedicated to several types of vehicles - at least those of similar size.
> We must be able to tag a shared motorcycle/moped/electric scooter
> parking area.
>
> If we really need a new top-level tag, it has to be something like
> *amenity=small_vehicle_parking* and comprise all of motorcycles, moped,
> mofa, speed_pedelec, scooters (of any kind) and so on. Further details
> could then be given by access tags to specify which kind of vehicles can
> be parked there.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:17:12 +0200
> From: Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
> Message-ID: <rgk5r8$in1$1 at ciao.gmane.io>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 07.08.20 19:11, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> > On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking
> > I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions:
> >
> > Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's
> > supposed to mean parking spaces for compact cars,
>
> You also have to keep in mind that what a 'compact car' is strongly
> depends on the region. What counts as 'compact' in the US is a 'regular
> sized' car in Europe and is a 'large' car in densly populated areas like
> Tokyo.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:39:37 +0100
> From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
> Message-ID:
>         <561c594960bd61730e14575e258ac2b094a86823.camel at trigpoint.me.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:09 +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original
> > post....is this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own
> > value? Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in
> > the UK?
>
> I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special
> spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time
> to clear the queue. Is that what this means?
>
> We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to
> collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there
> is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away.
> Again is that what this means.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200807/ff4082d4/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:59:04 +0000 (UTC)
> From: 德泉 談 <tran0408tran0408t at yahoo.com.tw>
> To: "tagging at openstreetmap.org" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
> Message-ID: <2094538961.1013874.1596826744569 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hello
>
> Sorry for pause the bubble tea proposal for a month due to my personal
> reason.
>
> In the discussion in June and July some people think the tag for bubble
> tea is too specific but there is a flaw in existing tags, so I made a new
> draft for containing more type of takeaway beverages shops, and it's still
> unsure whether use amenity=* or shop=*.
>
> Please comment and help me to complete the proposal, thanks.
>
> Tan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:47:37 -0400
> From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>,  Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking
> Message-ID: <f7acbf70-fa2d-d130-0e95-5cd25b8d694b at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 07/08/2020 11.55, Jan Michel wrote:
> > Note that we also lack a proper way to tag parking lots for trucks.
>
> This sounds like a good candidate for expanding capacity:* /
> parking_space=*, at least in the case of mixed-use lots. In general, I
> agree it would be good to have a better way to tag parking areas for
> specific vehicle types.
>
> BTW, how are hitching rails (i.e. "horse parking") mapped? ;-)
>
> --
> Matthew
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:54:56 -0400
> From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>,  Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
> Message-ID: <b2c15d1e-4394-fa63-0285-4117caaf6fc1 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 07/08/2020 14.39, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special
> > spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time
> > to clear the queue. Is that what this means?
>
> "No", because those are not *parking* spaces as was previously
> discussed. (Um... not sure where, possibly in one of the threads linked
> in the proposal.) OTOH *I* wouldn't be adverse to overloading it with
> that meaning, but technically speaking such spaces are not *parking*
> spaces, because you are not supposed to park in them. (Note the
> difference between "parking", "standing" and "stopping". You are
> supposed to *stop* in them, but not *park*.)
>
> > We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to
> > collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there
> > is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away.
> > Again is that what this means.
>
> That is explicitly "standing". Previous comments apply.
>
> Again, the *intended* use is for *parking* spaces (park, go inside,
> collect a to-go order, possibly *order* a to-go order and wait for it to
> be made... but don't sit down and eat at the restaurant). However *I*
> would not object to using it for any sort of parking/standing/stopping
> space where you are expected to not be long (and the space is
> specifically signed with something like "loading only") but there is not
> a specific time limit. Others might object, however. (Probably on the
> basis that this is not "parking", on which point they *are* technically
> correct.)
>
> --
> Matthew
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 131, Issue 49
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200807/bc469307/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list