Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/12 Tobias Knerr : > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings "on >> surface" (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, >> so also underground and multistorey) > > The "surface" default was part of the proposal that introduced the > surface/underground/multi-storey distinction: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Parking OK, but is the voting of a bunch of people on a wiki proposal sufficient to ensure that all amenity=parking by then were surface parkings? Introducing defaults afterwards is a fail in any case - as long as you don't check all entities which are in the map and make sure every mapper by then gets knowledge of the newly introduced default. > So imo at least this default should be put back onto the page. We can > discuss whether it should be abolished, but it clearly wasn't just a > later addition. It's a wiki, go ahead. Btw.: Personally I'd also consider parking=surface a reasonable default fallback for the case of a missing parking key (but I do enter parking=surface on the map for surface parkings, because it is unambigous, and I won't encourage people to omit this - what basically happens if you write "defaults" into the wiki). So, +1 to the suggestion to abolish this default. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings "on > surface" (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, > so also underground and multistorey) The "surface" default was part of the proposal that introduced the surface/underground/multi-storey distinction: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Parking So imo at least this default should be put back onto the page. We can discuss whether it should be abolished, but it clearly wasn't just a later addition. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
Hi, On 01/12/12 13:26, Pieren wrote: Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me know that all is optionnal but in the other way, editors are suggesting the opposite. And more you ask to newcomers and less your newcomers will contribute. +1 - it takes a certain amount of audacity to leave all those beckoning input fields blank. "No, sorry, I *only* want to map the fact that there's a tram line, I don't know operator, voltage, lines, operating rules, or gauge..." But that could be solved on the user interface side by splitting tags in "this tag is really important for this kind of feature" (like "name" for a street), and "these tags are optional". Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > But again: that's not a > good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily > provide. > Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me know that all is optionnal but in the other way, editors are suggesting the opposite. And more you ask to newcomers and less your newcomers will contribute. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/12 Pieren :
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for
>> missing information is: missing information.
>
> Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know
> that original "parking" proposal was intended for public parking lots
> on surface.
Excuse me Pieren, for calling you a "wiki-fiddler". I am sure you
acted with good intentions.
I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings "on
surface" (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings,
so also underground and multistorey) and I don't recall that there had
been some agreement (or even thought) if there was a fee or parking
was free of charge (btw.: most _public_ parking lots in dense urban
areas do charge a fee, "public" and "fee" are orthogonal information).
Besides from what was "orginally intended" we have to be aware that it
is for a very long time used for all kinds of parkings, so encouraging
the mappers to omit information by telling them this information would
be implicitly there ("default") is not a good idea IMHO.
> And eidtors and data consumers can consider default
> values when they are clearly documented (e.g. oneway on roundabouts).
Data consumers, especially those dealing with OSM-data, have to decide
how to handle missing information, I agree. But again: that's not a
good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily
provide.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private, but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's unlikely to catch on. access tags normally modify ways (as opposed to areas), and for routing purposes you need to have ways across the land if the data is to be usable (just around the periphery if there's no obvious paths across the middle). So put in appropriate access tags (eg access=private+foot=yes) on the ways. If the area is (for example) a field on which a handful of people have parking rights, and never occupy more than a fraction of it, I'd have said just mark a small parking area where they're most likely to park, and don't put parking tags on the field as a whole. Richard On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : >> > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : >> >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does >> >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that >> >> you can't park there. >> > >> > >> > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that >> > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current >> > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in >> > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you >> > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. >> >> Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is >> needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is >> phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact >> that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, >> it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good >> example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it) >> > > This is IMHO. > > To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all > practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it. > There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that > just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit. > > access seems to mean that access is private or permissive. > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for > missing information is: missing information. Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know that original "parking" proposal was intended for public parking lots on surface. You cannot call this 'wiki fiddling' just because you might disagree. And eidtors and data consumers can consider default values when they are clearly documented (e.g. oneway on roundabouts). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does > >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that > >> you can't park there. > > > > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that > > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current > > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in > > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you > > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. > > Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is > needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is > phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact > that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, > it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good > example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it) > This is IMHO. To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it. There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit. access seems to mean that access is private or permissive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
I'd have called it amenity=parking+access=private and then added a way through the area for pedestrians (tagging individual parking aisles, probably, plus any footway links to connect it up) On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does > >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that > >> you can't park there. > > > > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that > > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current > > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in > > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you > > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. > > Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is > needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is > phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact > that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, > it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good > example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it). > > > cheers, > > Martin > > Ciao, > > Simone > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that >> you can't park there. > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it). > cheers, > Martin Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> it says "A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on >> surface." So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me >> think that there will be lots of bad data.. > > actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for > missing information is: missing information. Changing (or setting) > defaults after years of mapping cannot work. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aamenity%3Dparking&action=historysubmit&diff=648803&oldid=640812 Actually the proposal page from 2007 said "Generally only public parking lots should be tagged,", but that page is now deleted so you will have to trust me.. :-) The page also says fee=* Default value is no. So as much as it hurts me I must say that historically this tag is only for public fee less parking, and that you have to change it to something else for all other cases. I do not think this is very good for the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > On the first line of amenity=parking: it says "A parking lot is an > area reserved for parking cars, trucks, motorcycles etc." Which is a > broad and in my opinion good way to describe something: include > everything by default. (See problems with natural=tree). +1 > Further down > it says "A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on > surface." So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me > think that there will be lots of bad data.. actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for missing information is: missing information. Changing (or setting) defaults after years of mapping cannot work. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aamenity%3Dparking&action=historysubmit&diff=648803&oldid=640812 > I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does > access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that > you can't park there. access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:58, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I think that a space that you rent as an open-air garage on a monthly basis, > cannot be considered an amenity "car parking". If you put these on the map > you are really creating confusion for the map users (= car drivers). > I would not map these facilities as car parking ( ... and don't have any > better alternative either) > On the first line of amenity=parking: it says "A parking lot is an area reserved for parking cars, trucks, motorcycles etc." Which is a broad and in my opinion good way to describe something: include everything by default. (See problems with natural=tree). Further down it says "A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on surface." So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me think that there will be lots of bad data.. There are two problems, neither which has been addressed. 1. how should different types of parking spaces be tagged 2. how should the existing amenity=parking be handled I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that you can't park there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
I think that a space that you rent as an open-air garage on a monthly basis, cannot be considered an amenity "car parking". If you put these on the map you are really creating confusion for the map users (= car drivers). I would not map these facilities as car parking ( ... and don't have any better alternative either) Volker On 11 January 2012 18:31, Toby Murray wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > >> I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to > >> rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how > >> most people do it. > > > > > > If the parking is not generally accessible, it is nice to add > > additional tags to it. access=private could be such a tag for your > > case (actually if the parking is publicly accessible but parking is > > not allowed if you didn't rent a lot, this common tagging might > > semantically be wrong). > > There is also the fee=* tag. JOSM displays it as a yes/no option in > the parking preset. There are 20,000 uses of fee=yes and 55,000 uses > of fee=no in the database. Not all of them are on parking though. > > Toby > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Volker SCHMIDT Via Vecchia 18/ter 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com office phone: +39-049-829-5977 office fax +39-049-8700718 home phone: +39-049-851519 personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : >> I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to >> rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how >> most people do it. > > > If the parking is not generally accessible, it is nice to add > additional tags to it. access=private could be such a tag for your > case (actually if the parking is publicly accessible but parking is > not allowed if you didn't rent a lot, this common tagging might > semantically be wrong). There is also the fee=* tag. JOSM displays it as a yes/no option in the parking preset. There are 20,000 uses of fee=yes and 55,000 uses of fee=no in the database. Not all of them are on parking though. Toby ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/11 Erik Johansson > I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to > rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how > most people do it. I'd like a subkey for the landuse=road :P ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to > rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how > most people do it. If the parking is not generally accessible, it is nice to add additional tags to it. access=private could be such a tag for your case (actually if the parking is publicly accessible but parking is not allowed if you didn't rent a lot, this common tagging might semantically be wrong). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Amenity parking
I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how most people do it. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
