Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 18. Jan. 2020 um 17:36 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:

> I wasn't speaking about disabled only here, even if it must exist
> countries where disabled are marked but not enforced by law, but i don't
> know any example. But for other dedicated parking space like "parent" or
> "electric charging", there are not many country enforcing them by law, even
> if they still are dedicated to these kind of people or users.
>


I guess you have to distinguish the kind of "dedicated to", some are legal
parking restrictions, others are just asking for courtesy (=cannot be
enforced because it is not against the law to park there anyway, just not
polite or social).

for reference e.g.
https://taz.de/Frauenparkplaetze-vor-Gericht/!5565328/  a German court
deciding in a "famous" case that "only women" parking signs has to be
reworded and that the signs are just polite questions, not prescriptions
(would be discriminating against men and other non-women people).

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Lionel Giard]

Allesandro,

I wasn't speaking about disabled only here, even if it must exist countries
where disabled are marked but not enforced by law, but i don't know any
example. But for other dedicated parking space like "parent" or "electric
charging", there are not many country enforcing them by law, even if they
still are dedicated to these kind of people or users. Thus
capacity:charging=1 for a parking_space dedicated to electric charging is
the only correct way of mapping it (especially since an access tag doesn't
exist for that) and in most country, nothing enforce you legally to not
park there if you want (it is only asked to not park there if you are not
the target group and you don't risk a fine for doing it anyway). Same for
special parking for parent near a supermarket entrance. These are designed
as a large parking space to ease the entry and exit of the car for parents
with small children (and toddler). You can always park there, even it may
be seen as selfish if you don't have any children... ;-)

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 09:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 17. Jan 2020, at 19:57, Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and
> only accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy)
>
>
> btw, in Italy disabled parking spaces are accessible by everyone, but only
> disabled people may park there (everybody may halt there, but you may not
> go away and leave your vehicle there)
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jan 2020, at 19:57, Alessandro Sarretta 
>  wrote:
> 
> If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and only 
> accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy)


btw, in Italy disabled parking spaces are accessible by everyone, but only 
disabled people may park there (everybody may halt there, but you may not go 
away and leave your vehicle there)

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jan 2020, at 10:40, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
> double-counting


yes, on the other hand I would see parking_space as parallel to parking, so if 
one is inside the other it would seem logical that the capacities are counted 
independently (double)


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi Lionel,

On 17/01/20 10:52, Lionel Giard wrote:

Alesandro,

The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by 
law), and would depend because each country's law vary (not every 
country enforce restriction for disabled parking or other type of 
vehicle...). Thus, it may be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist.


If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and 
only accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy), I think the tag 
disabled=designated express exactly that, and should be used.


If a parking space is not limited to disabled persons, what is the 
purpose to add a capacity:disabled=1? Maybe I'm missing your point... 
Could you please share and example where a parking space should have a 
capacity:disabled=1 but is not access-regulated?


Ale

While a tag that's only an attribute describing what type of parking 
exist, is unambiguous. It may be parking_space=* or access:*=* , both 
are "good" for that as they are unambiguous in their meaning. The only 
advantage of the second is that it is already used for amenity=parking 
and seems coherent to use for the parking_space in my opinion (even if 
it is only 1 place). The wiki page already mention all the different 
type because there are many other than disabled (like parent, women, 
electric charging,...) : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity


marc,

The capacity:*=* tag should not be used alone (as described for any 
parking), it is an addition to the capacity=* tag. For example, a 
place marked as "capacity=1" and "capacity:disabled=1" means that the 
1 capacity is disabled. A better example is for an amenity=parking, 
you have a parking with "capacity=12" and "capacity:disabled=3" it 
means 3 of the 12 parking space are disabled.
Theoretically, all parking_space should be capacity=1 (and if 
necessary capacity:*=*) but the advantage (as mentioned above) is that 
it would use the same tagging than for amenity=parking. Thus we 
wouldn't use two different scheme for the same thing.



Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 09:52, PanierAvide > a écrit :


Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special
treatment of amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=*
with that. My use case is for disabled people parking spaces :
just look for capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever
it is a parking or parking_space.

Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we
shouldn't use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the
access tag. But why is this the case? It seems logical to use
capacity:disabled=* on a parking_space for disabled people or
capacity:charging=* on a parking_space for electric vehicles that
are charging. And there is not always legal access linked to
these "special" parking spaces (e.g. I don't think there are many
places regulating parking on parents' parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
"capacity=*". ^_^

I therefore propose to change this description to favour this
tagging (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you
think about this?

Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[PanierAvide]

Well this specific case is quite easy to detect : if a parking space is 
contained in a wider parking, you subtract the amount of places in 
parking space from larger parking. And it would be easier to handle if 
capacity tags are using same naming on both instead of being different 
and needing to check access tags.


Regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 10:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :

According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.

So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
available for disabled people.

If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
double-counting.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/17/20, PanierAvide  wrote:

Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
parking_space.

Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g.
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents'
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
"capacity=*". ^_^

I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?

Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Lionel Giard]

Alesandro,

The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by law),
and would depend because each country's law vary (not every country enforce
restriction for disabled parking or other type of vehicle...). Thus, it may
be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist. While a tag that's only an
attribute describing what type of parking exist, is unambiguous. It may be
parking_space=* or access:*=* , both are "good" for that as they are
unambiguous in their meaning. The only advantage of the second is that it
is already used for amenity=parking and seems coherent to use for the
parking_space in my opinion (even if it is only 1 place). The wiki page
already mention all the different type because there are many other than
disabled (like parent, women, electric charging,...) :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity

marc,

The capacity:*=* tag should not be used alone (as described for any
parking), it is an addition to the capacity=* tag. For example, a place
marked as "capacity=1" and "capacity:disabled=1" means that the 1 capacity
is disabled. A better example is for an amenity=parking, you have a parking
with "capacity=12" and "capacity:disabled=3" it means 3 of the 12 parking
space are disabled.
Theoretically, all parking_space should be capacity=1 (and if necessary
capacity:*=*) but the advantage (as mentioned above) is that it would use
the same tagging than for amenity=parking. Thus we wouldn't use two
different scheme for the same thing.


Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 09:52, PanierAvide  a
écrit :

> Hello Lionel,
>
> I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
> amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use case
> is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for capacity:disabled=*
> and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or parking_space.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrien P.
>
> Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't use
> capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But why is
> this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a parking_space
> for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is not always legal
> access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. I don't think there
> are many places regulating parking on parents' parking spaces in the law).
> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
> "capacity=*". ^_^
>
> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lionel
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Joseph Eisenberg]

According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.

So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
available for disabled people.

If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
double-counting.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/17/20, PanierAvide  wrote:
> Hello Lionel,
>
> I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
> amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
> case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
> capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
> parking_space.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrien P.
>
> Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't
>> use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But
>> why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
>> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
>> parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is
>> not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g.
>> I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents'
>> parking spaces in the law).
>> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
>> "capacity=*". ^_^
>>
>> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
>> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Lionel
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[PanierAvide]

Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of 
amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use 
case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for 
capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or 
parking_space.


Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't 
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But 
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a 
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a 
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is 
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. 
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents' 
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of 
"capacity=*". ^_^


I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging 
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?


Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
> What do you think about this?

keep simple.
if a parking space is only for disabled ppl with access restriction,
why not using capacity=* on it ?
it's not wrong but useless to use namespace capacity:disable=*
in this case.
especially since capacity:disabled=1 doesn't say it's reserved for the
disabled, it just says there's a place for them (you can use an object
parking_space for an entire row)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi Lionel,

from what I've understood, the parking_space tag is meant to identify 
exactly one parking space, so the capacity whould be always 1...


In the specific case of parking spaces for disables persons, 
unfortunately there are many way of tagging it... In this issue related 
to the visibility in the OSMand app there are probably almost all of 
them. https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/6805


I'm currently using the one that seems to me the simplest one: 
amenity=parking_space + disabled=designated


m2c

Ale

On 17/01/20 09:36, Lionel Giard wrote:

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't 
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But 
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a 
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a 
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is 
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. 
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents' 
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of 
"capacity=*". ^_^


I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging 
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?


Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging