[Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions
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:
> > 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
> 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:
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging