[Talk-GB] Tagging of private parking in gardens

[Alan Mackie]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023, 11:56 Donald Noble, <drnoble at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the thoughts folks. Sorry I should have been clearer in my
> original message that I agree the acces=private tag is required, but I was
> wondering if the tagging should also be updated as well before I changed
> anything.
>

For parking at a house it might be better to go to the firmer access=no.


> I can understand Frederik's point about DWG complaints, as the faded P is
> also used where access is for customers, which is somewhat different to a
> private driveway. As Mark notes, this can lead to a very cluttered map
> (although that is not necessarily a reason not to map).
>
> I like Robert's suggestion of some other tagging for private driveways,
> although assume that would require some form of consensus. This was sort of
> what I was thinking in my original message.
>
> Jerry, the police call box is currently only a frame, not sure if it is
> being refurbished. I'm also not sure if there are restrictions on the
> Dorset Place parking, will check next time I'm passing.
>
> Cheers, Donald
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:53, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
>> On 03.01.23 14:35, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> > As well as Mateusz's suggestion of ensuring that it is access=private,
>> a
>> > new tag like parking=driveway rather than parking=surface might help
>> > (preferably not rendered with a P by OSM Carto).
>>
>> Frequent source of complaints to DWG - even when mapped access=private,
>> property owners will still often object to the "P" shown on the map.
>> Some will relent when we point out the much stronger blue "P" on a
>> public car park, but others - probably not unreasonably - fear that map
>> users will mistake this for a public space.
>>
>>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 14:37, Mark Goodge <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> My personal opinion, FWIW, is that we shouldn't map parking spaces that
>> are merely the forecourt or back yard of an individual private
>> residential dwelling. Otherwise, if done consistently it's going to make
>> the average suburban street look incredibly cluttered - most of the
>> common renders will be littered with densely packed Ps all over the
>> place in urban areas, and, while we don't map for the render, that kind
>> of tag is pretty useless for data consumers as well. It's also
>> meaningless for most residential properties, because, although parking
>> may well be the most common use, almost all residential curtilages are
>> multi-purpose.
>>
>> I think it is useful, though, to map shared parking in residential areas
>> (eg, parking for an apartment block), and also parking within the
>> curtilage of a commercial property. In these cases, though, it does need
>> to be tagged as private.
>
> I feel a reminder that we don't tag for the renderers is required here
although maybe strengthening the access restriction would provide a basis
to further diminish the rendering of non-shared private spaces.

>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:27, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The one on Merchiston Avenue has been tagged as private since it was the
>> amenity=parking was added by eric_ (a lead in the MESH project). Very nice old
>> police box
>> <https://canmore.org.uk/site/85649/edinburgh-merchiston-avenue-police-call-box> (tardis)
>> just outside. On Bing Streetview imagery the access to the parking is not
>> restricted by a gate. Looks to be mapped accurately.
>>
>> As others have said, the other one is probably a car park for guests of
>> the guest house and could do with an appropriate access tag. I've certainly
>> stayed in guest houses in this area with parking round the back (and also
>> in Corstorphine). These may be some of the closest places to the city
>> centre which provide such a facility.
>>
>> However, there are a number of other amenity=parking in this area which I
>> think deserve more attention than these two. For instance, on Dorset
>> Place <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/503332708> there are a number
>> of car parks which look like private parking for residents of the
>> apartments there. These should probably be tagged as for Abbotsford Court
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189682569/history> up the hill (a
>> place friends used to have a flat).
>>
>> I think it's worth reviewing access tags, but would not remove ones
>> already mapped.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20230103/7fbde55f/attachment-0001.htm>