[Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 12:19:50 UTC 2020

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:06, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>

> On 23/07/2020 17.26, Paul Allen wrote:
> > From the geometry, I'd say that was a parking lot.
> Currently, I have the non-parallel spots marked as a lot. To my mind,
> parallel parking and on-street parking are nearly synonymous.

I'm not entirely clear what you mean by those terms as you're
American.  The image in the wiki for parking lanes matches
what I expect of it.  As in this situation near me:
https://goo.gl/maps/WUZKmhQTDSRsgnDx7 on the right
of the road are double yellow lines, which mean "no parking
or waiting at any time" (but there are exceptions) and on
the left is a single yellow line which means "parking and
waiting permitted some of the time" (though there are
exceptions and provisions and it gets complicated).  The
left is a parking lane, as I understand it.  There are no
parking spaces marked.

> > From the fact that parking spaces are marked, it's not a parking
> > lane, in my opinion.
> Well it's certainly not a parking *lane*; you clearly are not meant to
> possibly drive through it. I was thinking that the fact the parking
> spaces are arranged so as to not occlude traffic was what was inclining
> me to model it as a "lot".

I take the marked parking spaces as a very strong hint that it's a lot.
It still depends on surrounding circumstances and context, but if they're
marked as parking spaces the purpose of those areas of hard paving is
for parking.  That makes them a parking lot rather than roadside parking.
Others differ on this.

> Really, it's the notion of a parking lot for which the aisle is also a
> main road that's throwing me...

The main road is a WIDE parking aisle. :)  Alternatively, it's a parking lot
with a very wide entrance.  Yeah, it's a bit weird, but how else do you
represent the parking area in a way that indicates there isn't a narrow
entrance from which you then fan out into parking spaces but that
each parking space may be entered directly from the main road?

As far as I can determine, the closest way we have of representing
the situation is a parking lot that abuts the highway.  It renders in a
way that is reasonably interpreted.  The alternatives are

1) A detached parking lot with no indication of how the car "jumps"
from the highway into it.  One of those appeared on this list a few
days ago.  Helicopter parking?

2) A detached parking lot with an access service road (that doesn't
exist) linking it to the highway so it is connected?  That's not
really how it is.

3) A parking lot that joins the highway.  Seems to work.

> Yeah, that line of thinking is similar in effect to asking if it
> occludes normal traffic flow. Different questions, but likely to have
> the same answer.

Same question, different phrasing.

> > This is how I handled a similar one:
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08562&mlon=-4.65829#map=19/52.08562/-4.65829
> >
> > Somebody objected that whilst that looked right when rendered, when
> > you examined it in the editor it misleadingly implied that you could
> > park with one end of your car blocking half of the street.

> Well, there's an easy solution to that; map the spaces, also ;-)

Yeah, but the spaces don't render.  Oh wow!  I just checked one of your
later examples and parking spaces now render.  I'd given up on hoping that
they would render.  Doesn't fix the example I'm thinking of, though - it's
clearly a pregnant bulge that is for parking, but no spaces are marked.

> . That said, I find that attitude slightly asinine; it's normal for a
> parking
> lot area to include at least parts of the aisles.

In one sense it's correct.  At a level of highway modelling we don't do and
may never do.  In terms of what gets rendered (where the renderer draws
roads on a layer above parking lots), it's perfectly comprehensible.  Since
we don't have a better way of representing what's there, I ignored the

> > I did one car park which attempted to deal with that complaint:
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.10572&mlon=-4.37367#map=19/52.10572/-4.37367
> > but it looks so ugly that I doubt I'll do that again.
> Agreed (on the 'looking ugly').


> Anyway, your example would be much more sane if the entire road had a
> mapped area, rather than just the little piece by the parking lot.

Yeah, but that ugly bit is also a lowered sidewalk.  That car park has a
very wide entrance (the width of the car park itself).  What I did was a
compromise, and it's ugly.  But without mapping (and rendering) sidewalks,
and mapping (and rendering) the true widths of roads, there's no good
way of handling it, just a variety of bad ways.

> ...and to be honest, another argument for modeling as lots is that the
> parking_lane tagging is rather more obtuse...

There is that.  Which is why I tend not to bother with it.  Especially as it
means surveying and finding out the restrictions on times.  And
re-surveying fairly frequently in case the restrictions change.  I leave
it as a pleasant surprise for visitors when they find they can actually
park there

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200724/55251a86/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list