Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

oh yeah i just wasn't sure whether there was a reason it was barely mentioned 
and had no wiki page. i'll probably stick to preferring that over 
access:disabled judging from what everyone has said and the fact it even has 
renderers using it
On 19/08/18 13:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 19. Aug 2018, at 13:32, seirra  (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/58d81cc2-f042-224a-fbae-fc49e84df...@sarifria.x10.bz/0?redirect=mailto%3Ageneral%40sarifria.x10.bz=dGFnZ2luZ0BvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)>
>  wrote:
> > i don't mean amenity=parking_space... i mean parking_space=disabled
>
> all keys are „valid“, you can use any tag you like in OSM. There are very few 
> exceptions, e.g. “type” is considered a reserved tag to indicate the relation 
> type.
>
> There is a map that renders the tag you asked about:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rollstuhlkarte.ch 
> (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/58d81cc2-f042-224a-fbae-fc49e84df...@sarifria.x10.bz/1?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FRollstuhlkarte.ch=dGFnZ2luZ0BvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/58d81cc2-f042-224a-fbae-fc49e84df...@sarifria.x10.bz/2?redirect=mailto%3ATagging%40openstreetmap.org=dGFnZ2luZ0BvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>  
> (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/58d81cc2-f042-224a-fbae-fc49e84df...@sarifria.x10.bz/3?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=dGFnZ2luZ0BvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Aug 2018, at 13:32, seirra  wrote:
> 
> i don't mean amenity=parking_space... i mean parking_space=disabled


all keys are „valid“, you can use any tag you like in OSM. There are very few 
exceptions, e.g. “type” is considered a reserved tag to indicate the relation 
type.

There is a map that renders the tag you asked about:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rollstuhlkarte.ch


cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

i don't mean amenity=parking_space... i mean parking_space=disabled


On 18/08/18 00:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 17. Aug 2018, at 09:45, seirra > wrote:



is parking_space even a valid tag though?(i can't see any documentation)




it is a tag for a single parking space.
it is documented:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space

Cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Aug 2018, at 09:45, seirra  wrote:
> 
> is parking_space even a valid tag though?(i can't see any documentation)



it is a tag for a single parking space.
it is documented:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space

Cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

huh. I thought i read about it needing to be access:disabled... however 
i feel like this should be quoted: "Nodes and areas tagged with amenity 
=parking_space and 
parking_space 
=disabled 
 
are rendered on rollstuhlkarte.ch 
 
(Wheelchair symbol with a small P in the top right corner; also see 
rollstuhlkarte.ch-Wikipage 
)." and upon 
inspection there are MANY, much more than the use of access:disabled, or 
even disabled! is parking_space even a valid tag though?(i can't see any 
documentation) because this seems to be the only example of actual 
rendering, should we first see if we can get the developers to 
transition to rendering the disabled tag before we change it?



On 08/17/18 00:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:19, seirra  wrote:

also i saw some cases of access:disabled=customers? wouldn't access=customers 
paired with access:disabled=designated be a good pairing?


actually the documented tag is
“disabled=*” and it has more than double the usage than “access:disabled=*”
capacity:disabled=* ist by far (30 times) more used than either of these.

Semantically, for a parking access:disabled makes less sense, because access is 
about who can enter the polygon ;-) For a road it could be beneficial to prefix 
“access” because it removes any ambiguity.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:19, seirra  wrote:
> 
> also i saw some cases of access:disabled=customers? wouldn't access=customers 
> paired with access:disabled=designated be a good pairing?


actually the documented tag is
“disabled=*” and it has more than double the usage than “access:disabled=*”
capacity:disabled=* ist by far (30 times) more used than either of these.

Semantically, for a parking access:disabled makes less sense, because access is 
about who can enter the polygon ;-) For a road it could be beneficial to prefix 
“access” because it removes any ambiguity.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

"assigned with a specific role" is probably the best interpretation for 
example "this is a designated disabled parking area" would mean the 
specific role is parking for disabled people. the preferred model does 
seem to be tagging access=no then the exceptions from what i can tell. 
there probably should be more templates really to aid in this, but then 
again if you don't define the access tag and the only thing there is 
access:disabled=designated i guess it's the same idea. also i saw 
some cases of access:disabled=customers? wouldn't access=customers 
paired with access:disabled=designated be a good pairing? it's just then 
a question of how we also specify the no tag in the neatest way possible 
or if we omit it in that scenario



On 08/16/18 23:06, Jo wrote:

you mean it must be tagged:

access=no
+exceptions
?

designated is an odd word. I started to understand it as signposted as 
such, or clear from road markings.


but it's not the meaning it has in designated driver, where it means 
"assigned with a specific role/responsability"


Op do 16 aug. 2018 om 23:59 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


On 17/08/18 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra mailto:gene...@sarifria.x10.bz>> wrote:
>>
>> should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or
should it be considered a stylistic choice?
>
> generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to
express who can park there not who can access the lot. It should
be “only” or “designated” because yes does not exclude others,
while only does and designated tends to do.
>

For OSM .. to exclude others it should it not be tagged

access=no

then

disabled=yes/designated to accept disabled?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Jo]

you mean it must be tagged:

access=no
+exceptions
?

designated is an odd word. I started to understand it as signposted as
such, or clear from road markings.

but it's not the meaning it has in designated driver, where it means
"assigned with a specific role/responsability"

Op do 16 aug. 2018 om 23:59 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 17/08/18 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra  wrote:
> >>
> >> should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should
> it be considered a stylistic choice?
> >
> > generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who
> can park there not who can access the lot. It should be “only” or
> “designated” because yes does not exclude others, while only does and
> designated tends to do.
> >
>
> For OSM .. to exclude others it should it not be tagged
>
> access=no
>
> then
>
> disabled=yes/designated to accept disabled?
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Warin]

On 17/08/18 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra  wrote:

should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be 
considered a stylistic choice?


generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who can park 
there not who can access the lot. It should be “only” or “designated” because 
yes does not exclude others, while only does and designated tends to do.



For OSM .. to exclude others it should it not be tagged

access=no

then

disabled=yes/designated to accept disabled?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

alright, when i get the time i'll correct them and link to this 
discussion, perhaps tomorrow if i remember



On 08/16/18 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra  wrote:

should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be 
considered a stylistic choice?


generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who can park 
there not who can access the lot. It should be “only” or “designated” because 
yes does not exclude others, while only does and designated tends to do.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra  wrote:
> 
> should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be 
> considered a stylistic choice?


generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who can park 
there not who can access the lot. It should be “only” or “designated” because 
yes does not exclude others, while only does and designated tends to do.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it 
be considered a stylistic choice?



On 08/16/18 22:29, marc marc wrote:

Le 16. 08. 18 à 21:42, seirra a écrit :

another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a
standard disabled parking space be designated or yes?

designated seems the better value for this case
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[marc marc]

Le 16. 08. 18 à 21:42, seirra a écrit :
> another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a 
> standard disabled parking space be designated or yes?

designated seems the better value for this case
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

[seirra]

another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a 
standard disabled parking space be designated or yes? the usage is mixed 
so i'm unsure... i'm sticking with designated for now (it's 'designated' 
to a disabled driver)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging