On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, James Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > That's probably because some bored nitwit looking at the aerial > photography observed what appears to be a paved area with little lines
I do a lot of this kind of stuff, fyi. > The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots > (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff > in a business park) is handled with access=* tags. ... > The church property perimeter is tagged on the map, and the parking > area described is fully contained within that property. Why would one > assume that a parking area contained within the church property to be > a public parking space? Because the distinction of "public" vs "private" doesn't come close to conveying the complexities of actual access in the real world. Truly "private" carparks don't really exist: a parking space on someone's private property where only they and their family park. And from there on, there's an almost continuous gradation of levels of privateness/publicness all the way up to fully public: no one has any claim over it whatsoever. Also, I don't tags things access=private much because they render so horribly, with pink blobs all over them, in Mapnik. Also, FYI. A much better scheme would be something like: amenity=parking parking=customer parking=employee parking=commercial parking=members parking=guests ... Steve _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
