Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Supaplex
In this case you can simply use "parking:lane:right = parallel". Since it is a simple parking lane, it has nothing to do with street_side as suggested in the proposal. (The question is rather how to tag the bike lane - a suggestion is for example is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 27-10-2020 09:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > because in OpenStreetMap everything is “valid”, but both approaches > are not equally good. In this specific case, as soon as > landuse=highway is mapped as an area, having connected the adjacent > landuses to the middle of the street will become

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2020, at 08:17, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Both approaches are valid because in OpenStreetMap everything is “valid”, but both approaches are not equally good. In this specific case, as soon as landuse=highway is mapped as an area, having connected the adjacent

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 26-10-2020 21:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > If parking is on both sides of the street, the parking area already > crosses the street, and even if it doesn't, logically the parking area > *does* connect to the street. I disagree with the argument that mapping > thus is somehow "wrong", and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Phake Nick
See "Parking-Protected Bike Lanes | The City of Portland, Oregon": https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77882 在 2020年10月27日週二 01:45,Supaplex 寫道: > Do you have an example picture/mapillary or similar of such a street? You > call this case yourself "parking lane" and the way you describe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 26/10/2020 15.19, Jeroen Hoek wrote: On 26-10-2020 19:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Alternatively, clients might look at the sort of highway running through a parking area. A highway=tertiary is probably "street-side parking", while a highway=service, service=parking_aisle probably is not.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 26-10-2020 19:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Alternatively, clients might look at the sort of highway running > through a parking area. A highway=tertiary is probably "street-side > parking", while a highway=service, service=parking_aisle probably is > not. That's not a bad thought, but it would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 25/10/2020 03.58, Jeroen Hoek wrote: Our proposal facilitates this: renderers can render street-side parking however they wish, because the tag tells them it is street-side parking. Alternatively, clients might look at the sort of highway running through a parking area. A highway=tertiary

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Supaplex
Do you have an example picture/mapillary or similar of such a street? You call this case yourself "parking lane" and the way you describe it, it sounds like a typical case for parking:lane:* = parallel/diagonal/perpendicular, but not for parking:lane:*/parking=street_side. "street_side" is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Supaplex wrote: > Hey all, > > I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-10-25 15:47, Allroads wrote: > All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan > by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no, > because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically desired and > legally permitted, it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Allroads
All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no, because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically desired and legally permitted, it is a plan. Landuse is not about the zoning

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Oct 2020, at 14:41, Allroads wrote: > > All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan > by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no, because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Allroads
For me, the value "parking_space" what key, single space problem must be fixed first to say something about "street_side". As it comes to a vote. Could you elaborate? amenity=parking_space can be used as usual within amenity=parking. This of course also works with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 22:27, Allroads wrote:> Use area:highway for polygon and parking! I will clarify the relation of our proposal to area:highway, thanks for pointing it out. In brief, the two tagging methods coexist and complement each other. Our proposal focuses on the parking-amenity (and thus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 23:54, Paul Allen wrote: > So tagging for the renderer because, in your opinion, these car parking > areas are unimportant. By that line of reasoning tagging highways anything other than highway=motorway is tagging for the renderer. I understand your concern, but no, it is not our

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:51, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 24-10-2020 15:58, Paul Allen wrote: > > I don't see any valid reason for wanting to de-emphasize them and you > > do not attempt to provide one. Maybe there is a valid reason but I > > don't see it. > > Thanks for the feedback; we'll clarify

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:25, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > These two variants are mapping for the renderer, > Incorrect. They are approximations to reality. Everything we map is an approximation to reality, one way or another, because the map is a representation. That they happen to render in a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Allroads
The two methods: 1. Tagging on the way line. When a road, highway=* 2. Tagging a polygon. When a road, area:highway=* Will always be used next to each other. We have to take that into account. New mappers, see a parking plot/space and want to draw that in, that is logical behaviour. It is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 16:22, Janko Mihelić wrote: > These two variants are mapping for the renderer, and both add false > data. The first one extends the parking over half the road. The second > creates a service road area over half the road. There is no service road > area there, you are just trying to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 15:58, Paul Allen wrote: > I don't see any valid reason for wanting to de-emphasize them and you > do not attempt to provide one. Maybe there is a valid reason but I > don't see it. Thanks for the feedback; we'll clarify that point. From the proposal: > Furthermore, this type of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 15:58, Paul Allen wrote: > What you haven't convinced me of is that it isn't amenity=parking. > By any rational definition it is.  I know of off-carriageway parking > which is controlled by a county council and has a ticket > machine.  The county council lists it as a car park, one >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Janko Mihelić
sub, 24. lis 2020. u 15:14 Paul Allen napisao je: > Variant 1. Extend the parking area out to the roat it is on. Pretty much > as > you handled the lay-by example. As far as rendering goes, where most > carto renders the road on top of the parking area, it represents things > as a way that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:35, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 24-10-2020 15:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > As rendered it appears you need a skyhook or > > a cargo helicopter to park. Not good. You're probably as unhappy with > that > > method of tagging as I am. > > True, but the same goes for lots of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Jeroen Hoek
On 24-10-2020 15:11, Paul Allen wrote: > As rendered it appears you need a skyhook or > a cargo helicopter to park.  Not good.  You're probably as unhappy with that > method of tagging as I am. True, but the same goes for lots of points-of-interests and other mapped parts of the urban landscape;

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:42, Supaplex wrote: I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway without having to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Janko Mihelić
I support parking=street_side, this is a much needed tag. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-24 Thread Supaplex
Hey all, I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly from the roadway without having to use an access way: