[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Sat Aug 8 17:37:23 UTC 2020

On 07/08/2020 18.08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> 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.
> it was really just a slip

Okay, but then I don't understand the (original) objection? We already 
have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with adding more 
capacity:*? (Note that these apply to amenity=parking, *not* to 
amenity=parking_space. There is capacity, and *just* capacity — no 
capacity:*, and none is being proposed — on amenity=parking_space, 
although personally I question whether there should be...)

Is it just unclear that the proposed capacity:* apply to amenity=parking?

> It was always clear that parking_space was for a single parking space
> and the back then already well established “parking” was for a bigger
> site with multiple spaces.

Well, perhaps it is clear to you and I, but I found a number of 
amenity=parking_space with capacity > 1 and no associated 
amenity=parking. *Someone* is using it wrong :-).

There are also a bunch of parking_space=* on *buildings*, which 
similarly seems like poor tagging. (I guess the intent is to say "the 
parking *associated with* this facility is X, but I really don't care 
for that vs. actually mapping the parking.)


More information about the Tagging mailing list