[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Mon Aug 10 12:53:13 UTC 2020


On 08/08/2020 19.12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with
>> adding more capacity:*?
> 
> But what number do we show for "capacity"?

IIUC, all of them. So...

> I started wondering about this after one of the carparks you mentioned in
> Quantico recently showed capacity 15, with 11 car spaces + 4 motorbike
> spaces. Should that be =15, or =11 + 4?

...15. Rationale: existing capacity:* spaces are not usable unless you 
meet the criteria, but are (AFAIUI) included in capacity. The 
description in JOSM is explicitly "capacity (overall)". On the wiki, it 
is "the number of vehicles a facility holds". Both imply total capacity, 
including spots that aren't usable to many vehicles. It seems clear that 
the intent is that "general" capacity is the overall capacity less any 
capacity:*.

It's possible that some software will need to adapt (though I question 
how critical it is to know capacity, since no software can know how many 
spaces are already occupied), but it's also possible such software is 
already not honoring other, existing capacity:* tags.

> So, do we have a shopping centre parking lot with capacity=100, or should
> we have capacity:"vehicle"=60; capacity:motorbike=10; capacity:disabled=10;
> capacity:prams***=6; capacity:ev_charging=4;
> capacity:(temporary/short_term/click'n'collect)=5; capacity:loading=5

Hmm, "loading" would be good for curbside pick-up, though now we're into 
the discussion of whether a space for standing-only is actually a 
"parking" space :-). As for the main thrust of your question, see above.

> ***=prams - I'm not sure if they're yet a thing in OSM?, but that's
> carparks marked as reserved for parents with prams eg
> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0997524,153.4253639,3a,64.7y,77.23h,72.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3e6IiMfvLC7DrZq1RA4TUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yeah, that might make sense. I'm not sure if it's better to go ahead and 
add that, or if we should treat each type as a separate proposal. (I'd 
almost be tempted to yank "compact" again and resubmit it as a follow-up.)

-- 
Matthew



More information about the Tagging mailing list