2011/3/18 Flaimo <fla...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2011/3/18 Flaimo <fla...@gmail.com>: > i don't agree with that, because only the physical areas where, for > example a car, can park is a parking space/area, but not for example > the street itself.
Yes, but the streets that are exclusively used to access the parking space are part of the parking. The latter is what amenity=parking is about, (see also in combination with parking=surface, underground, multilevel), the first is what you want to tag. > the current mapping scheme by using a big area over > the whole parking facility is just inaccurate and comes from times > where mappers didn't have satellite images available and couldn't > accurately map such areas. no. It is not mapping the actual parking space but the whole parking facility. > what you actually would need is a > landuse=parking and a amenity=parking. the first describes the whole > parking facility, the second the actual parking spaces. no, you don't need a landuse, see above. > take this parking lot for example: http://osm.org/go/0JhJenH8g-- . how > should a renderer or routing programm know, that those individual > parking spaces actually are one big lot? They can't know, because the mapping is not "correct". But pointing at mapping errors does not prove anything. > the proposal, so a more accurate mapping of the individual elements is > possible. Yes, and as said in my first post, I second this, but encourage you not to misuse amenity=parking for it but rather use something like parking_space or whatever. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
