[Tagging] parking conditions on separately mapped parking areas / harmonise access and parking:condition tags

[Alex]

I think we have a misunderstanding here: There can be no "option 4 - 
keep things unchanged" because the described problem has simply not been 
solved or documented yet. Street-side parking areas exist since one and 
a half years only and the tagging of parking restrictions was not part 
of the proposal. Therefore, I can't mark any variant that is in use now. 
As far as I can see, among the few mappers who are engaged in this 
topic, both variants described for areas are in use. I'm using variant 1 
myself. A few days ago I saw a table from another mapper who described 
variant 2 (via OSM DE Telegram Channel). Variant 3 (complete renewal of 
the parking lane scheme) would have a very serious impact, especially 
since StreetComplete released the new parking overlay yesterday (I don't 
have to tell you that :) PTv2 sends its regards...

But to get a documented standard I compared the different options and 
asking for opinions to follow up on one of the three options. The 
tagging details can then be discussed there.



Am 03.09.22 um 13:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
>
>
> Sep 2, 2022, 15:31 bysupaplex at riseup.net:
>> 1. We use the established tags for parking lots also on        street-side parking areas (access=*, fee=*, maxstay=*... and        their conditional restrictions).
> impossible, as road access and street-side parking areas may have different
> access, fee and maxstay status
>
> prefixing would be needed, and at this point this tags are not so established
> anymore
>
> in case that I am confused: how in variant 1 you would tag road usable by anyone
> with "residents only" parking lane?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking_conditions_on_separately_mapped_parking_areas
> seems to not have variant 1 linear examples
>
>> 2. We adopt the parking:condition=*-scheme for street-side        parking areas
> I am not too happy about this, that brings extra complexity where it is not
> needed
>
>> 3. We fundamentally resolve this conflict by adopting the common        OSM access scheme to the parking:lane/condition scheme.
> I will read it and will comment if I will have anything useful
>
>> I have illustrated these variants and some of their advantages      and disadvantages: >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking_conditions_on_separately_mapped_parking_areas
>>
>>
> area features would benefit from marking which variant is used now
> (second column, right?) and maybe moving it to the first column
>
> how amenity=parking access=private fee=no would be tagged in a schema 2?
>
>> ...and wonder which variant would have the most support in the      community or what you think about it in general. Ideally, we will      gain an opinion on which of these variants should be      continued/proposed/documented.
>>
>>
> there is also option (4) - keep things unchanged
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220903/41670adf/attachment.htm>