[Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space
alessandro.sarretta at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 18:56:19 UTC 2020
On 17/01/20 10:52, Lionel Giard wrote:
> The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by
> law), and would depend because each country's law vary (not every
> country enforce restriction for disabled parking or other type of
> vehicle...). Thus, it may be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist.
If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and
only accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy), I think the tag
disabled=designated express exactly that, and should be used.
If a parking space is not limited to disabled persons, what is the
purpose to add a capacity:disabled=1? Maybe I'm missing your point...
Could you please share and example where a parking space should have a
capacity:disabled=1 but is not access-regulated?
> While a tag that's only an attribute describing what type of parking
> exist, is unambiguous. It may be parking_space=* or access:*=* , both
> are "good" for that as they are unambiguous in their meaning. The only
> advantage of the second is that it is already used for amenity=parking
> and seems coherent to use for the parking_space in my opinion (even if
> it is only 1 place). The wiki page already mention all the different
> type because there are many other than disabled (like parent, women,
> electric charging,...) : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity
> The capacity:*=* tag should not be used alone (as described for any
> parking), it is an addition to the capacity=* tag. For example, a
> place marked as "capacity=1" and "capacity:disabled=1" means that the
> 1 capacity is disabled. A better example is for an amenity=parking,
> you have a parking with "capacity=12" and "capacity:disabled=3" it
> means 3 of the 12 parking space are disabled.
> Theoretically, all parking_space should be capacity=1 (and if
> necessary capacity:*=*) but the advantage (as mentioned above) is that
> it would use the same tagging than for amenity=parking. Thus we
> wouldn't use two different scheme for the same thing.
> Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 09:52, PanierAvide <panieravide at riseup.net
> <mailto:panieravide at riseup.net>> a écrit :
> 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,
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging