[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 08:01:17 UTC 2020

In the parking example that i talk about, the multipolygon is not usable if
i want to indicate the specificity of each part of the parking lot like
capacity or capacity:disabled (as the tagging is global for every outer
part). I like the site relation as it allows to also group the vending
machine or the amenity=parking_entrance for underground parking (as a car
park may have both underground + overground parkings). I find a site
relation more practical in such cases and I never used it technically for
malls with only overground parkings (but that was in the original proposal
example i think ^^).

My use case was more about the underground parking where I grouped all the
parking_entrance (both pedestrian and for vehicle) with a "site=parking"
relation. One example is this one :
(there are one vehicle entrance, one vehicle exit, multiple pedestrian
entrance/exit and few vending machines for it). *Do you have a better way
of tagging this ? ^^*
I just used what i found on the wiki at the time, and it was clean in my
opinion. :-p

Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200715/f0c751f9/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list