Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 16:44, > wrote: > > > But I can see cases where emergency and disabled makes sense as access values > instead. I can also see this, but it is a different meaning, and I’m not

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 16:44, > wrote: > > Now suppose I have a gate (intended for foot traffic). The gate has a sign > "Emergency Personnel Only". access=private > > emergency=yes is obviously

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

> > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they > central question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, > private, destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes > (like foot, bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...) > > this is already documented on the access

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 18. May 2018, at 09:03, > wrote: > > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they central > question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, private, > destination,

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

> > >> -Original Message- >> From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 16:24 >> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=disabled >> >> On 18/5/18 16:03, Warin wrote: >>>

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access but as transport modes. > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 16:24 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=disabled > > On 18/5/18 16

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 18/5/18 16:03, Warin wrote: On 18/05/18 15:44, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: "disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki. "emergency" is not documented either. As there are over 400 uses of it .. I am tempted to document it .. along with emergency - I have

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

rom: John Willis <jo...@mac.com> Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 13:59 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=disabled Javbw On May 10, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'dis

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

Javbw > On May 10, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. I know I am just jumping in - but this is also something I am interested in. I know if we have a big parking lot waiting the

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-11 5:18 GMT+02:00 Nick Bolten : > > I would expect a dedicated parking space for disabled drivers to have > room for a ramp. AFAIK it is required by the standard specification (in > Germany, likely in the EU). > > I can guarantee you, that is not universal. > you are

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-11 1:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 11/05/18 09:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > i.e. it is forbidden to cross the parking by foot if you are not disabled? > > and if an area is tagged amenity=parking, access=customers ... same > problem. > while it is somehow true,

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

> I would expect a dedicated parking space for disabled drivers to have room for a ramp. AFAIK it is required by the standard specification (in Germany, likely in the EU). I can guarantee you, that is not universal. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:25 PM Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

What I have for now : Disabled Parking - Way: 587061339   Tags:     "access"="disabled"     "surface"="paved"     "amenity"="parking"     "capacity:disabled"="3"     "description"="Disabled Parking"     "source"="survey"     "capacity"="3" Ambulance Parking - Way: 584778386   Tags:    

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 11/05/18 09:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-05-11 0:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: On 10/05/18 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I think capacity tagging would be better (if referring to who can park there), or is really the

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-11 0:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 10/05/18 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > I think capacity tagging would be better (if referring to who can park > there), or is really the access restricted? > > Legally the spaces I am tagging are only meant for disabled

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/05/18 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 10. May 2018, at 05:04, Johnparis > wrote: If it's exclusive the normal tagging would be: access=no disabled=yes I think capacity tagging would be better (if referring

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

Disabled parking spaces here are/should be extra wide - to allow for wheelchair mounting/dismounting. A few wheelchair people have vehicles where the wheelchair is mounted to the roof by some winch system - they need the extra room for the wheelchair to go up/down. The rear of most, if not all

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

2018-05-10 21:56 GMT+02:00 Nick Bolten : > As a follow-up, it is valuable to know whether a parking space has > dedicated room for a ramp (i.e. one that extends out of the vehicle). > capacity:disabled only describes whether there's dedicated parking for the > disabled. Would

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > I agree that capacity:*=yes isn't as information-rich, it's just the > convention listed on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key: > capacity. > Not the convention but A convention. More precisely, an option:

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

I agree that capacity:*=yes isn't as information-rich, it's just the convention listed on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity. I suppose it could help communicate different certainties in mapping. There is *some* value in knowing whether any spaces are available, versus the

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > Would it be too deeply nested to have capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#? > I don't know about being too deeply nested, but if you consider it hierarchical I'm not happy with the implied semantics that capacity takes a yes/no

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

As a follow-up, it is valuable to know whether a parking space has dedicated room for a ramp (i.e. one that extends out of the vehicle). capacity:disabled only describes whether there's dedicated parking for the disabled. Would it be too deeply nested to have capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#? On

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

10. May 2018 02:19 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : > Hi, > > I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. > > There appears to be no documented way to tag these. > > I think the present practice is to use the 'access' tag, things like

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2018, at 05:04, Johnparis wrote: > > If it's exclusive the normal tagging would be: > > access=no > disabled=yes I think capacity tagging would be better (if referring to who can park there), or is really the access restricted? > >

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10.05.2018 05:04, Johnparis wrote: > access=no > disabled=yes > > ...to be consistent with other such, like  > access=no > bus=yes Unlike "bus", "disabled" is not a mode of transport, so it should not be used in the key of access tags. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

If it's exclusive the normal tagging would be: access=no disabled=yes ...to be consistent with other such, like access=no bus=yes Though I would argue that they all should use the access: prefix in this case access=no access:disabled=yes On Thu, May 10, 2018, 02:51 Andrew Davidson

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/5/18 10:34, Warin wrote: and then the consumer would need to test it for exclusivity. That does appear to be the logic applied. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/05/18 10:32, Andrew Davidson wrote: If you want to go down to the level of mapping individual parking spots have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space ? No, not individual spaces but a small collection ... See Concord Hospital - best imagery

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/05/18 10:29, Andrew Davidson wrote: Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity ? How does it exclude others? Humm would need more than one addition... amenity=parking capacity:disabled=3 capacity=3 and then the consumer would need to test it for exclusivity.

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

If you want to go down to the level of mapping individual parking spots have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to be no documented way to tag these. I think the present practice is to use the 'access'

[Tagging] access=disabled

Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to be no documented way to tag these. I think the present practice is to use the 'access' tag, things like customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access. There are some 400 uses