[OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)

[Stijn Rombauts]

 I didn't check all those tags, but that's probably how it should be done indeed technically, as Lionel said. Drawing 4 parking spaces is much easier. And easier to understand for less experienced mappers. Which is also a good argument, IMHO. We don't want to create a database which is too difficult to understand for new mappers.On the other hand: if we just say that the wiki is not that good and everything can be interpreted loosely, where will we end up then?
Regards,
StijnRR

    Op dinsdag 5 november 2019 11:13:57 CET schreef Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:  
 
 so for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tyzRIji1MXSDUcxAxoxFoQ (the
spot from the previous mail)

parking:lane:both=marked
parking:lane:left:type=on_kerb  (*)
parking:lane:right:type=half_on_kerb (*)
parking:lane:right:capacity=2
parking:lane:left:capacity=2
parking:condition:both=free

(*) perhaps left and right has to be switched here.

Should I somehow tag the fact that only cars can park there (and no
long vans as in the picture, nor trucks) ?

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Lionel Giard <lionel.giard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these : https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233  with Roeselare as a somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed, the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^
>
> Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-)
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m=
>> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking
>> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in
>> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end.
>>
>> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same?
>>
>> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema
>> for such situations.
>>
>> m.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard <lionel.giard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside parking with the parking:lane tag on the street.
>> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^
>> >
>> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel
>> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van
>> >> parkeerterrein) is.
>> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat
>> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de
>> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ?
>> >>
>> >> m.

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20191118/34b3b51d/attachment.htm>