[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 13:48:46 UTC 2020

On 14/07/2020 19.39, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke 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.

Oh, right, I keep forgetting about that. They're all notionally "the 
Chili's parking lot", but people use the back lot as overflow parking 
for other nearby locations (e.g. the office building to the immediate 
northeast). I'm sure they'd get annoyed at someone taking their "prime" 
spaces for that purpose, but I haven't observed them caring about folks 
in the far end of the back lot.

Maybe this is an argument for a site, instead?

OTOH, now we can rehash the access=destination discussion given that 
(most of¹) the lot isn't *explicitly* signed "customers only" and yet 
that's obviously the intent.

(¹ I would argue that the 'carry-out only' spaces qualify as 'customers 

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

As I understand it, the operator tag is more of a legal thing (which I 
honestly wonder why or *how* we map) and not so much an "associated with 
such-and-such building" tag. Accordingly, it is clear as mud how I'm 
supposed to apply that tag.

>> (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.

Only specific parking spaces² are carry-out only. The lot as a whole — 
and I would expect most people to consider it *one* lot³ — contains a 
mix of several types of parking spaces, distinguished only by marking 
and/or signage. I think it would be odd to specifically carve out the 
carry-out-only spaces from the rest of the lot.

IMHO there should be a way to tag that a lot contains such spaces.

(² IMHO, any reasonable person is going to consider them parking spaces, 
even if they are implicitly limited to a very short time. On which note, 
'15 minute parking' spaces are also quite common, at least in my area.)

(³ Possibly, as I've drawn it, three lots, or anyway three clearly 
different 'sections' of something which conceptually is a single lot.)


More information about the Tagging mailing list