Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 09/12/19 10:12, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 08.12.2019 um 05:04 schrieb Alessandro Sarretta:

Hi Martin,

my doubt on your proposal is that I think the only useful value would
be "designated" (anyway, can you share any example/picture of a sign
describing a park specificly designated for carpooling?). But in this
case I'd support


you can have a look at a sign for such a parking lot which is explicitly
built and maintained for carpooling under the following link:
https://mitfahren.rlp.de/fileadmin/_processed_/2/3/csm_Mitfahrerparkplatz_LBM_3_2_b8add83c7b.jpg


As far as I know, in a general-use parking (without specific access
conditions) anyone can park, meet with a friend, and then continue the
journey with only one car... What is the purpose to explicitly add
this information?


Parking spaces that have been explicitly created for car pools are built
and maintained by the state. Furthermore, this type of car park does not
exist everywhere, mostly only at points where many commuters meet. It
makes the search easier. Because at the moment such objects can only be
found by a possible name, for example "Mitfahrerparkplatz".




As far as I can see those parking places are available for all to use.

So tag as;

amenity=parking

carpool_parking=yes ??


The name is not Mitfahrerparkplatz, at best that is a description. We don't use 
name=parkplatz ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[brad]

It isn't limited to that.

On 12/7/19 4:49 PM, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 07.12.2019 um 18:59 schrieb brad:

We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

"park and ride" rather describes the change to public transport and not
the continuation of driving with others in a private vehicle.

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 08.12.2019 um 05:04 schrieb Alessandro Sarretta:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> my doubt on your proposal is that I think the only useful value would
> be "designated" (anyway, can you share any example/picture of a sign
> describing a park specificly designated for carpooling?). But in this
> case I'd support
>
you can have a look at a sign for such a parking lot which is explicitly
built and maintained for carpooling under the following link:
https://mitfahren.rlp.de/fileadmin/_processed_/2/3/csm_Mitfahrerparkplatz_LBM_3_2_b8add83c7b.jpg

> As far as I know, in a general-use parking (without specific access
> conditions) anyone can park, meet with a friend, and then continue the
> journey with only one car... What is the purpose to explicitly add
> this information?
>
Parking spaces that have been explicitly created for car pools are built
and maintained by the state. Furthermore, this type of car park does not
exist everywhere, mostly only at points where many commuters meet. It
makes the search easier. Because at the moment such objects can only be
found by a possible name, for example "Mitfahrerparkplatz".


Martin




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 08.12.2019 00:49, Martin Scholtes wrote:


Am 07.12.2019 um 18:59 schrieb brad:

We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?


"park and ride" rather describes the change to public transport and not
the continuation of driving with others in a private vehicle.


However it is the same concept to reduce the number of individual cars in the 
city.

Literally it means that you park your own and ride another vehicle,
whether that is a public transport train, a pooled car, an otherwise shared car,
a rental/shared bike, a scooter -- it is all the same concept.

There will be more coming in near future.

Thus it would be helpful and prevent tag fragmentation to group them all
under the established "park and ride" concept
and specify the respective riding facility in subtag.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi Martin,

my doubt on your proposal is that I think the only useful value would be 
"designated" (anyway, can you share any example/picture of a sign 
describing a park specificly designated for carpooling?). But in this 
case I'd support


As far as I know, in a general-use parking (without specific access 
conditions) anyone can park, meet with a friend, and then continue the 
journey with only one car... What is the purpose to explicitly add this 
information?


Ale

On 05/12/19 11:08, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Hello,

I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and
drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
carpool.

I would be pleased about suggestions.

Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.


Greetings

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 08/12/19 10:54, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 07.12.2019 um 19:44 schrieb Philip Barnes:

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:46 +0100, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 05.12.2019 um 12:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging:


Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?

The proposal aims at marking parking places where one could meet to
carpool or which explicitly provide for parking one's vehicle and
forming a carpool.

An example would be a car park at a railway station, where you could
meet and carpool, but the car park is not explicitly intended for
this
purpose, but for travelling by public transport.

In that case you could very easily be in breach of the terms of use of
that car park. Occasional use may go unnoticed but one a public
database encourages such use then action could happen.

This type of tagging should only apply to officially designated places.

I have local knowledge of changes to parking conditions resulting in
changes to the conditions of use aimed at preventing such usage.


It may be that the person in question is using the parking lot contrary
to the service, but this is less noticeable on site.

In my opinion it should not be given for such a case, because =no is
standard.


There is also the case that it should be verifiable 'on the ground'. Where this 
is 'casual' then it may not be a good think to include in OSM.
Where it is 'designated' then I would assume there is signage on the ground to 
let people know, as such those areas should be in OSM.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 08/12/19 10:43, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Am 07.12.2019 um 09:33 schrieb Warin:

park_drive=no for parking of customers only or private.
These should already be tagged with an access tag to say this .. so it
is redundant?

This form should not be explicitly stated but rather understood as
implicit values. Similar to highway=footway, footway=designated implies.


It should be understood from the access tag that it excludes all others.


park_drive=yes where car pool parking is ok.
In my country this is the default. Unless there is some time limit
(and that limit would apply to all) then it is ok to park there for
any reason. The time limit should be indicated by some other tag .. so
this is redundant?

After a lot of thinking I will =yes out, because it is already covered
with designated or informal.

park_drive=informal for car pool parking that is neither allowed nor
forbidden??? No. It cannot be both 'not allowed' and 'not forbidden'.

by =informal we mean that there is no explicit sign for parking and
forming or driving in carpools, similar to =yes. For example, there are
parking lots that are often used to form carpools, but are not intended,
so parking lots for hikers.


Then I would leave this out. It is open to all, excludes no one.


park_drive=designated for car pool parking only?? Then it is an access
tag like access=customers.

=designated describes explicitly designated parking spaces at, for
example, motorway junctions that are public.


If it is only, only, for car pool parking then an access tag such as 
access=carpool would do.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 07.12.2019 um 19:44 schrieb Philip Barnes:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:46 +0100, Martin Scholtes wrote:
>> Am 05.12.2019 um 12:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging:
>>
>>> Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?
>> The proposal aims at marking parking places where one could meet to
>> carpool or which explicitly provide for parking one's vehicle and
>> forming a carpool.
>>
>> An example would be a car park at a railway station, where you could
>> meet and carpool, but the car park is not explicitly intended for
>> this
>> purpose, but for travelling by public transport.
> In that case you could very easily be in breach of the terms of use of
> that car park. Occasional use may go unnoticed but one a public
> database encourages such use then action could happen.
>
> This type of tagging should only apply to officially designated places.
>
> I have local knowledge of changes to parking conditions resulting in
> changes to the conditions of use aimed at preventing such usage.
>
It may be that the person in question is using the parking lot contrary
to the service, but this is less noticeable on site.

In my opinion it should not be given for such a case, because =no is
standard.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 07.12.2019 um 18:59 schrieb brad:
> We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

"park and ride" rather describes the change to public transport and not
the continuation of driving with others in a private vehicle.

Martin




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 07.12.2019 um 09:55 schrieb Shawn K. Quinn:
>
> I have also seen this referred to as "park and
> pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a
> name as well? 
park_pool I find too confusing

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 07.12.2019 um 09:33 schrieb Warin:
> park_drive=no for parking of customers only or private.
> These should already be tagged with an access tag to say this .. so it
> is redundant?
This form should not be explicitly stated but rather understood as
implicit values. Similar to highway=footway, footway=designated implies.
>
> park_drive=yes where car pool parking is ok.
> In my country this is the default. Unless there is some time limit
> (and that limit would apply to all) then it is ok to park there for
> any reason. The time limit should be indicated by some other tag .. so
> this is redundant?
After a lot of thinking I will =yes out, because it is already covered
with designated or informal.
> park_drive=informal for car pool parking that is neither allowed nor
> forbidden??? No. It cannot be both 'not allowed' and 'not forbidden'.
by =informal we mean that there is no explicit sign for parking and
forming or driving in carpools, similar to =yes. For example, there are
parking lots that are often used to form carpools, but are not intended,
so parking lots for hikers.
> park_drive=designated for car pool parking only?? Then it is an access
> tag like access=customers.
=designated describes explicitly designated parking spaces at, for
example, motorway junctions that are public.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 07/12/19 20:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 7. Dec 2019, at 09:57, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

I have also seen this referred to as "park and
pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a name as 
well?


seems comprehensive, I agree there should be the „and“ in the tag


Given the weather here at the moment "park and pool" would imply parking the 
car and going for a swim in a pool, very pleasant.

In the interests of not abbreviating "park and carpool" would be better.

However...

These are car parking spaces. Those already have existing tags.
The only complication is that these particular spaces have access rights for 
carpooling.
So tag the access!





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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:46 +0100, Martin Scholtes wrote:
> Am 05.12.2019 um 12:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging:
> 
> > Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?
> The proposal aims at marking parking places where one could meet to
> carpool or which explicitly provide for parking one's vehicle and
> forming a carpool.
> 
> An example would be a car park at a railway station, where you could
> meet and carpool, but the car park is not explicitly intended for
> this
> purpose, but for travelling by public transport.

In that case you could very easily be in breach of the terms of use of
that car park. Occasional use may go unnoticed but one a public
database encourages such use then action could happen.

This type of tagging should only apply to officially designated places.

I have local knowledge of changes to parking conditions resulting in
changes to the conditions of use aimed at preventing such usage.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[brad]

On 12/6/19 7:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes > wrote:


Hello,

I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about
park and
drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to
form a
carpool.

I would be pleased about suggestions.


I'm thinking this should be a subtag of park and ride ragging already 
existing.  There's quite a few Park and Ride lots in places that don't 
confer exclusive use of transit, and usually if you see a Park and 
Ride lot in the rural midwestern US, there's a good chance it is 
exclusively for for carpooling commuters.



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

We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Dec 2019, at 09:57, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> 
> I have also seen this referred to as "park and
> pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a name 
> as well?


seems comprehensive, I agree there should be the „and“ in the tag

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 12/6/19 18:38, Martin Koppenhoefer via Tagging wrote:



sent from a phone


On 6. Dec 2019, at 23:28, Martin Scholtes 
wrote:

What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I
can't figure it out.



the name is misleading, rather than park_and_drive, the name of the
concept and borrowing from the well known park and ride concept, you
named the tag park_drive which means literally a road in a park. I
also find this confusing.


I have also seen this referred to as "park and
pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a 
name as well?


--
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Warin]

On 05/12/19 21:08, Martin Scholtes wrote:

Hello,

I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and
drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
carpool.

I would be pleased about suggestions.

Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.


Welcome!
Do not take any suggestions as personal attacks but as ideas on improving the 
tag.


In Australia this is called 'car pooling'.

As I understand it the tag is for people to park there car in one area and 
leave it there while going to a common car to continue their journeys.

To me this is 'parking'. If the parking spaces is designated for 'car pooling' 
then an access tag could be used.  For example 'access=car_pool'?



Detailed in the proposal there is;

park_drive=no for parking of customers only or private.
These should already be tagged with an access tag to say this .. so it is 
redundant?

park_drive=yes where car pool parking is ok.
In my country this is the default. Unless there is some time limit (and that 
limit would apply to all) then it is ok to park there for any reason. The time 
limit should be indicated by some other tag .. so this is redundant?


park_drive=informal for car pool parking that is neither allowed nor 
forbidden??? No. It cannot be both 'not allowed' and 'not forbidden'.


park_drive=designated for car pool parking only?? Then it is an access tag like 
access=customers.


Hope you follow that?



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and
> drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> carpool.
>
> I would be pleased about suggestions.
>

I'm thinking this should be a subtag of park and ride ragging already
existing.  There's quite a few Park and Ride lots in places that don't
confer exclusive use of transit, and usually if you see a Park and Ride lot
in the rural midwestern US, there's a good chance it is exclusively for for
carpooling commuters.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Koppenhoefer via Tagging]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Dec 2019, at 23:28, Martin Scholtes  wrote:
> 
> What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't
> figure it out.


the name is misleading, rather than park_and_drive, the name of the concept and 
borrowing from the well known park and ride concept, you named the tag 
park_drive which means literally a road in a park.
I also find this confusing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 06.12.2019 um 11:58 schrieb Philip Barnes:
> My first thought on seeing this, before reading, was a North American parkway 
> where you drive through parkland.
>
> Still not sure how this isn't carpooling.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't
figure it out.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 5 December 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:10, Martin Scholtes 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> > Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> > carpool.
> >
> 
> I would prefer the key to park_and_drive.  It's longer, and more typing,
> but better English
> and less prone to confusion.  Particularly for those in the UK and New
> Zealand (and maybe
> elsewhere) who know of these:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=park+drive+cigarette

My first thought on seeing this, before reading, was a North American parkway 
where you drive through parkland.

Still not sure how this isn't carpooling.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:10, Martin Scholtes 
wrote:

>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> carpool.
>

I would prefer the key to park_and_drive.  It's longer, and more typing,
but better English
and less prone to confusion.  Particularly for those in the UK and New
Zealand (and maybe
elsewhere) who know of these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=park+drive+cigarette

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am 05.12.2019 um 12:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging:

> Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?
The proposal aims at marking parking places where one could meet to
carpool or which explicitly provide for parking one's vehicle and
forming a carpool.

An example would be a car park at a railway station, where you could
meet and carpool, but the car park is not explicitly intended for this
purpose, but for travelling by public transport.


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Martin Scholtes]

Am I right in assuming that you support the proposal with the deviation
to only specify the values "designated" and "informal"?

Am 05.12.2019 um 12:13 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> The only value of this key that is clear
> park_drive=designated (i.e. there are signs that allow only
> car-pooling parking)
> Any other car park that does not have a short time limit can be used
> for that purpose.
> Local knowledge may be used to identify those for which
> car_drive=informal
> might be a possible tag.
> Looking on satellite photos will give you hints for those. The ones I
> know of are not designated, but informal.
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:10, Martin Scholtes  > wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about
> park and
> drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to
> form a
> carpool.
>
> I would be pleased about suggestions.
>
> Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.
>
>
> Greetings
>
> 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

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen


Martin Scholtes



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Sören Reinecke via Tagging]

> Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.There's not much to know. Now the discussion part begins, be attentative. Usually the discussion ends after the two week period and then voting takes place.I do not quite understand the definition of your proposal. Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_driveFrom: Martin Scholtes To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: Hello,I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park anddrive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_driveDefinition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form acarpool.I would be pleased about suggestions.Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.GreetingsMartin___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

[Volker Schmidt]

The only value of this key that is clear
park_drive=designated (i.e. there are signs that allow only car-pooling
parking)
Any other car park that does not have a short time limit can be used for
that purpose.
Local knowledge may be used to identify those for which
car_drive=informal
might be a possible tag.
Looking on satellite photos will give you hints for those. The ones I know
of are not designated, but informal.


On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:10, Martin Scholtes 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and
> drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> carpool.
>
> I would be pleased about suggestions.
>
> Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.
>
>
> Greetings
>
> 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