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
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-sto
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 contribu
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 opt
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"
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
unlik
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 p
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.
> >
>
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 Er
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
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 atte
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
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
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
bette
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 ac
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
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
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/lis
18 matches
Mail list logo
