Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 08/08/2020 19.12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke wrote: We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with adding more capacity:*? But what number do we show for "capacity"? IIUC, all of them. So... I started wondering about

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Hi Graeme, On 09/08/20 01:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke > wrote: We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with adding more capacity:*? But what number do we show for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with > adding more > capacity:*? > But what number do we show for "capacity"? I started wondering about this after one of the carparks you mentioned in Quantico recently

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 19:37, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Well, perhaps it is clear to you and I, but I found a number of > amenity=parking_space with capacity > 1 and no associated amenity=parking. > *Someone* is using it wrong :-). yes, what I intended was that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 18.08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using > amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual > spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards mapping, and it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 14:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will >> not change it > > Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the least > "interesting" bit of the proposal. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 13.11, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's supposed to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 14.39, Philip Barnes wrote: I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time to clear the queue. Is that what this means? "No", because those are not *parking* spaces as was previously

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:09 +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original > postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own > value? Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in > the UK? I am not 100% sure

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07.08.20 19:11, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's supposed to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07.08.20 15:36, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > That said... now I'm on the fence. FWIW, the amenity=parking page > mentions parking_space=disabled as being supported by at least one > renderer, while one has to do quite some digging for how to use > access:*. Clearly we *do* need to improve the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it's supposed to mean parking spaces for compact cars, but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Aug 7, 2020, 15:06 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Maybe we need > a different status to indicate "was not voted upon but is widely used and > most people are happy with it" but we don't have that.  > We have that, it is "de facto" status. ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Re: status to indicate "was not voted upon but is widely used and most people are happy with it" That's the "de facto" status. -- Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:09 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > >> >> Well, yes, voting "no" is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 10.09, Jez Nicholson wrote: I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own value? That's not how I would interpret it. Stuff like "15 minute parking" also exists; "takeaway" parking

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 10:09, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original > postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own value? > Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in the UK? How else would you tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 14:40, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Ahem: > Brain fart on my part. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: amenity=parking is defined for single parking spaces, adding capacity to what seems to be a subtag, would create confusion Okay... yike. I think I see the problem here (after doing some digging into extant usage). The problem is *you have

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 09.06, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the least "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpose here would be just to bless the tag with "status=approved" rather than

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 08.23, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: Dear Matthew, On 06/08/20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the > least "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpose here would be just > to bless the tag with "status=approved" rather than "status=de-facto". > But it wasn't approved

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Dear Matthew, On 06/08/20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled I've always had some doubts in using

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it > - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified parking lot, by introducing