On 25/07/2020 03.34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
Consisting of one contiguous surface? Clearly associated with the same building?
but it’s clearly distinct things: a
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>>> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with
>>> dividing things which are logically "one parking lot"
>> if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
>
> Consisting of
On 24/07/2020 10.44, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934579 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934591, or (even better)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934580 and
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:20, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
>
> For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934579 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934591, or (even better)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934580 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934583. To wit, in both
On 24/07/2020 02.19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with
dividing things which are logically "one parking lot"
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing
> things which are logically "one parking lot"
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
Cheers Martin
On 22/07/2020 20.49, Warin wrote:
You asked for 'better' without defining what better means to you.
To me it is 'better' to know where these things are (requires more work
by the mapper) rather than that they are somewhere inside some area
(requires less work by the mapper).
Disabled parking
On 23/7/20 6:42 am, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate
entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> why do we have capacity:disabled, or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling
> those spaces as separate lots?
because different mappers have different preferences. For disabled parking
spaces I would also prefer
On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate
entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is
*only* the motorcycle spaces which could be
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke <
mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>:
> I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for
> motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot
> as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this
It would be advantageous to map them separately because one riding a
motorcycle could make better use of OSM to navigate to and from the exact
position of the applicable parking space.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:11 PM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> I've seen some parking lots that have spaces
I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for
motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot
as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this (something
like capacity:motorcycle)?
Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as
13 matches
Mail list logo
