[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
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