[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 20:14:14 UTC 2020
On 07/08/2020 13.11, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> 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.
Done; thanks! (BTW, "compact cars" probably gives better results. I used
https://www.google.com/search?q=parking+for+compact+cars&tbm=isch as an
"example" on the proposal page.)
To Jan's point, that sounds like a documentation issue, or possibly a
need for parking_space=oversized. I think "normal" should mean "normal
*for that region*", and similarly, "compact" should means *for that
region*. Of course, the real rule of thumb is whether the space is
marked "compact only" (and/or is clearly smaller than its neighbors).
Is it worth essentially writing the wiki page for parking_space=compact
so that it's clear *exactly* what we're voting on, or can we vote on the
general idea and hash out the precise wording after?
> 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.
Although I have yet to see such a thing, that doesn't make your point
> If so, we could consider a solution something like
> parking_space:takeaway=yes, or a clearly defined meaning for
> semicolon-separated values.
I would normally assume that semicolon-separated values are union ("or")
rather than intersection ("and"). Maybe your example should be
parking_space=takeway+disabled (note the '+' rather than ';')? Given I
don't know of extant examples, however, I'm just as happy to punt on it
More information about the Tagging