[Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

PanierAvide panieravide at riseup.net
Fri Jan 17 09:54:44 UTC 2020

Well this specific case is quite easy to detect : if a parking space is 
contained in a wider parking, you subtract the amount of places in 
parking space from larger parking. And it would be easier to handle if 
capacity tags are using same naming on both instead of being different 
and needing to check access tags.


Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 10:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
> intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.
> So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
> expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
> available for disabled people.
> If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
> double-counting.
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> On 1/17/20, PanierAvide <panieravide at riseup.net> wrote:
>> Hello Lionel,
>> I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
>> amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
>> case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
>> capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
>> parking_space.
>> Best regards,
>> Adrien P.
>> Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't
>>> use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But
>>> why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
>>> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
>>> parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is
>>> not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g.
>>> I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents'
>>> parking spaces in the law).
>>> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
>>> "capacity=*". ^_^
>>> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
>>> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Lionel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list