[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 07:33:24 UTC 2020


Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:

> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are
>> tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that
>> sane, or do I need to do this differently?
>>
>
> Doesn't look sane at present.  You have combined one public parking area
> with two private ones.  If they're all private, for use by the restaurant,
> mark
> them all as private.
>


if they are for the clients of the restaurant, the typical tagging is
access=customers
Also you should not have 2 objects amenity=parking which cover the same
area (regardless of additional tags).



>
> Even so, is a multipolygon giving any information that couldn't be had
> by separate parking areas with the appropriate operator tag?
>


+1, this is what I would choose, no relation at all. It is also what you
can probably argue for "on the ground": two parkings operated by the same
business, not one parking spread over 2 areas.




>
> (BTW, is there any accepted way to tag a 'carry-out only' space?)
>>
>
> If you're talking about one (or both) of those parking areas by the
> restaurant, then it is (or they are) not really a parking area.  I'd
> probably make it a closed way with highway=service + area=yes
> and then risk the wrath of purists by naming it "Pick-up Zone".
>


there is the "maxstay" tag which can be used with a value like 5 or 15
minutes.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxstay#values

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200715/efc870b6/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list