Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 even sure if 
using the exact same term would be helpful for people to understand the 
meaning. Look at agricultural, it can mean both, a vehicle class when used as 
key or a “use mode” when used as value. If we start introducing more use modes 
with the same names as vehicle classes, access tagging will seem even less easy 
to understand.


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 wrong. That would imply that an ambulance can 
> drive through there.
> 
> foot=emergency would make much more sense instead.


why? “emergency personnel“ is about people working in the emergency context, 
but it doesn’t imply there has to be an emergency, they could just as well have 
a break for coffee

foot=emergency could mean pedestrians having an emergency can pass. It is not 
selfexplanatory.

„emergency=yes“ also is probably used for different things: 
a) for „emergency forces in action“
b) for vehicles used by emergency forces, like police cars, fire fighters, 
ambulances.

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[osm.tagging]

> > 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 page

Yes, as I already pointed out myself in the part of my message that you didn't 
quote.

I was questioning if the decisions that had been made was the correct one (or 
at least if it should be extended).

e.g. "emergency" is documented as a transport mode:

emergency=* (category: emergency motor vehicles; e.g., ambulance, fire truck, 
police car)


Now suppose I have a gate (intended for foot traffic). The gate has a sign 
"Emergency Personnel Only".

emergency=yes is obviously wrong. That would imply that an ambulance can drive 
through there.

foot=emergency would make much more sense instead.

That would make it an access value, similar to:

delivery: Only when delivering to the element.
customers: Only for customers of the element. If access is not open to any 
person willing to pay, consider using private instead. Membership clubs are 
generally tagged as private.
agricultural: Only for agricultural traffic.
forestry: Only for forestry traffic.

That is, emergency would in this case be a property of the person wanting 
access, instead of the specific transport mode a person is currently using.

Similar issue with disabled.

Disabled, according to the wiki is in the category:

access/vehicle/motor_vehicle/By use/disabled

Suppose I want to tag e.g. a priority entrance for disabled people as part of a 
ticket barrier at a railway station.

disabled=yes would imply that it's for use by disabled people in motor vehicles?

That sounds wrong.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying emergency and disabled should be removed as 
transport modes.

But I can see cases where emergency and disabled makes sense as access values 
instead.

My previous post was meant to invite discussion on this, not a "we are done 
with that already, move on".

Cheers,
Thorsten






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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes (like foot, 
> bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...)



this is already documented on the access page 


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Erkin Alp Güney]

access=disabled sounds much like access=disallowed.


18-05-2018 10:03 tarihinde osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au yazdı:
> 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, ...)
>
> access=no
> emergency=yes
>
> implies that it is a transport mode. 
>
> While:
>
> vehicle=emergency
> foot=yes
>
> an access tag value.
>
> Personally, I feel that disabled and emergency sound more like access tag 
> values (similar to customer, agricultural, forestry) than transport modes.
>
> But I've now noticed that emergency and disabled ARE actually documented 
> under 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 16:03, 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 used both.
>> Why not:
>>
>> access=no/private/etc
>> emergency=yes
>>
>> there are 28,400 of these, rather than inventing your own?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] access=disabled

[osm.tagging]

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, ...)

access=no
emergency=yes

implies that it is a transport mode. 

While:

vehicle=emergency
foot=yes

an access tag value.

Personally, I feel that disabled and emergency sound more like access tag 
values (similar to customer, agricultural, forestry) than transport modes.

But I've now noticed that emergency and disabled ARE actually documented under 
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 16:03, 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 used both.
> 
> Why not:
> 
> access=no/private/etc
> emergency=yes
> 
> there are 28,400 of these, rather than inventing your own?
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] access=disabled

[Andrew Davidson]

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 used both.


Why not:

access=no/private/etc
emergency=yes

there are 28,400 of these, rather than inventing your own?


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Warin]

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 used both.




I would say setting capacity and capacity:disabled to the same value makes it 
clear already that the whole parking lot is only for disabled parking, and it 
follows a documented tagging scheme that relevant data consumers should already 
be processing correctly.


-Original Message-
From: 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 '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 a few disabled
spots along an isle near the store entrance, than
capacity:disabled=4 added to a normal parking lot is appropriate.

But the instances I am trying to map are large disabled-only lots.
They (sometimes) have a gate that the security guard opens,
allowing anyone with a disabled plackerd to enter. It is a
separately mappable lot near the normal access=customers. Most of
them are physically separated from any other parking by kerbs and
shrubs.

I really think access=disabled is appropriate for this parking lot.
All others are denied.

Having to map space-by-space to just show that this *lot* is
disabled-only seems weird.

Javbw
___
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] access=disabled

[John Willis]

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 a few disabled spots along an 
isle near the store entrance, than capacity:disabled=4 added to a normal 
parking lot is appropriate.

But the instances I am trying to map are large disabled-only lots. They 
(sometimes) have a gate that the security guard opens, allowing anyone with a 
disabled plackerd to enter. It is a separately mappable lot near the normal 
access=customers. Most of them are physically separated from any other parking 
by kerbs and shrubs. 

I really think access=disabled is appropriate for this parking lot. All others 
are denied. 

Having to map space-by-space to just show that this *lot* is disabled-only 
seems weird. 

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 right :)

I guess if there isn't sufficient room authorities will prefer to have a
disabled parking space with limited usability rather than no disabled
parking space at all.

While you will typically have to fulfill the requirements defined by the
standards for a new construction (in order to get a building permit, but
maybe depending on the local building authorities policies), there can
still occur situations which don't completely satisfy them.

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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, it is less of a practical problem, because anyone
is a potential customer. You don't have to actually buy something on order
to be a "customer" for the question of access. If I were to define
rendering rules, I would generally allow access to access=customers
entities and would clearly not allow access to objects with access=no,
disabled=yes objects if the user is not disabled=yes.




>
> according to the wiki, agricultural, forestry, customers etc. are _values_
> for access tags:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values
> (agricultural is also a vehicle class though).
>
>
> And some are using disabled as a value too... which was my suggestion ..
> see the subject of the thread.
> Too me this is a logical extension of the present system of use ..
>


to me it is not logical, because you either are "disabled" or not, it is
like a vehicle class, not a mode you sometimes conform to and sometimes not
(like delivery or destination). In other words, it is like "agricultural=*"
not like "*=agricultural".



>
>
> "disabled" are a class of users (see "by use"):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values
>
>
> This is 'documented"? Ha. Look at the page for the 'documentation'. I have
> no idea what it is at all
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adisabled
>


this is a stub, you can find the docu on the page I linked above, or "see
also" on this page.


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[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.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:25 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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 it be too deeply nested to have
>> capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#?
>>
>
>
> 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).
>
> 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] access=disabled

[Warin]

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:
    "access"="emergency"
    "capacity:emergency"="3"
    "surface"="paved"
    "amenity"="parking"
    "description"="Ambulance Only"
    "source"="LPI Imagery + knowledge"
    "capacity"="3"

15 min parking Way: 584778387
  Tags:
    "maxstay"=".25"
    "source"="LPI Imagery + knowledge"
    "surface"="paved"
    "amenity"="parking"

Not certain of the 15 minute parking capacity .. would need to look .. 
too much of a hurry when I have been there to note the capacity. Left by 
a different way.


On 10/05/18 13:04, Johnparis wrote:

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 > wrote:




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

[Warin]

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 access restricted?

Legally the spaces I am tagging are only meant for disabled parking.



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.







there are some of these
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3Adisabled 

but the mostly used value is “no”, probably this is an inconsistency 
(not about legal access but about accessibility)


The no value is some 500, combine values yes and designated and you 
get ~800.



according to the wiki, agricultural, forestry, customers etc. are 
_values_ for access tags:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values
(agricultural is also a vehicle class though).


And some are using disabled as a value too... which was my suggestion .. 
see the subject of the thread.

Too me this is a logical extension of the present system of use ..



"disabled" are a class of users (see "by use"):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values

Their documented tag is "disabled=*"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disabled


This is 'documented"? Ha. Look at the page for the 'documentation'. I 
have no idea what it is at all

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adisabled

One line saying

"disabled=* is used e.g. if there are exceptions for parking rules. "

Really ? What does that mean ??? just going on this 'documentation' I 
could not use it .. in any place.


So far the only 'suggestions' I have that work for me are ;

use of access=disabled .. some 400 uses
capacity ... needs two entries to specify it and you need to know the 
numbers otherwise it could indicated spaces for others which is not the 
case. Only works for things that have a capacity?



I note the use of access=emergency .. some 2,500 uses ... no 
documentation. I have used this on a parking area.
And I note this is documentation as a 'by use' ... thing too .. very 
inconsistent with other values...
Why the difference between these things .. they all look like they 
should be in the same kind of system - either they should all be values 
or not values?


I'll need to think on it some more. :) Not fixed on anything for the 
moment. But I'd like it to be easy.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 parking.
>


i.e. it is forbidden to cross the parking by foot if you are not disabled?




there are some of these
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3Adisabled
but the mostly used value is “no”, probably this is an inconsistency (not
about legal access but about accessibility)

The no value is some 500, combine values yes and designated and you get
~800.


according to the wiki, agricultural, forestry, customers etc. are _values_
for access tags:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values
(agricultural is also a vehicle class though).


"disabled" are a class of users (see "by use"):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values

Their documented tag is "disabled=*"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disabled

Why would we want to push tag fragmentation by promoting a different tag
with not even half the usage and a third of questionable "no" values?

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Warin]

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 to who can park 
there), or is really the access restricted?

Legally the spaces I am tagging are only meant for disabled parking.





...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


That is not consistent with access=customer/forestry/delivery/agricultural?






there are some of these
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3Adisabled
but the mostly used value is “no”, probably this is an inconsistency 
(not about legal access but about accessibility)


The no value is some 500, combine values yes and designated and you get 
~800.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Warin]

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 disabled spaces face the traffic lane .. so 
a ramp could use that, temporally stopping traffic.


On 11/05/18 08:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



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 it be too deeply nested
to have capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#?



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).


Cheers,
Martin




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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 it be too deeply nested to have
> capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#?
>


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).

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Paul Allen]

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:
capacity:disabled=yes/no/number.


> I suppose it could help communicate different certainties in mapping.
> There is *some* value in knowing
>
whether any spaces are available, versus the exact number.
>

There's a benefit to knowing if there are/are not disabled spaces available
rather than not knowing at all.
But if you know the number it's far better to use that rather than "yes."

Combining `capacity:disabled=5` with `capacity:disabled:ramp=4` would imply
> that 1 disabled parking space doesn't have dedicated room for a van ramp,
> if I understand your question right.
>

That was what I had in mind.  Because capacity:disabled=5 and
capacity:disabled:ramp=yes would imply
they all have room for a ramp, which may not be the case (and it's probably
better to give the number for ramps
anyway, so there is no ambiguity).  Leaving room for a ramp means less room
for parking in general, so you
might get 5 disabled spaces and only 2 with room for ramps.

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Nick Bolten]

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 exact number.

Combining `capacity:disabled=5` with `capacity:disabled:ramp=4` would imply
that 1 disabled parking space doesn't have dedicated room for a van ramp,
if I understand your question right.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:04 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> 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 value.  And
> how do you
> handle it if some of the capacity:disabled=5 have space for a ramp but
> others don't?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] access=disabled

[Paul Allen]

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 value.  And
how do you
handle it if some of the capacity:disabled=5 have space for a ramp but
others don't?

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[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 it be too deeply nested to have
capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#?

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:47 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> 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
> customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access.
>
> There are some 400 uses of access=disabled according to tag info.
>
> Thought on any other methods?
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking
> documents tagging capacity and capacity:disabled (in this case - both with
> the same value)
> ___
> 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] access=disabled

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 
> customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access.
>
> There are some 400 uses of access=disabled according to tag info.
>
> Thought on any other methods?
>

 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking 

documents tagging capacity and capacity:disabled (in this case - both with the 
same value)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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? 


> 
> ...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


there are some of these
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3Adisabled
but the mostly used value is “no”, probably this is an inconsistency (not about 
legal access but about accessibility)


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Tobias Knerr]

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Johnparis]

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  wrote:

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Andrew Davidson]

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

[Warin]

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 looks to be LPI Imagery
3 spaces Way: 587061339 - Disabled parking in front of Hospital 
Emergency Department. Disabled visible in imagery
3? spaces Way: 584778386 - Ambulance parking in front of Hospital 
Emergency Department. Vertical signs not visible in imagery.
4? spaces Way: 584778387 - 15 min parking in front of Hospital Emergency 
Department. Vertical signs not visible in imagery.




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' tag, things like 
customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access.


There are some 400 uses of access=disabled according to tag info.

Thought on any other methods?

Failing any 'good alternatives' I'll document its usage.


___
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] access=disabled

[Warin]

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.



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' tag, things like 
customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access.


There are some 400 uses of access=disabled according to tag info.

Thought on any other methods?

Failing any 'good alternatives' I'll document its usage.


___
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] access=disabled

[Andrew Davidson]

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 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 of access=disabled according to tag info.

Thought on any other methods?

Failing any 'good alternatives' I'll document its usage.


___
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] access=disabled

[Andrew Davidson]

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' tag, things like 
customers, delivery, forestry all specify a restricted access.


There are some 400 uses of access=disabled according to tag info.

Thought on any other methods?

Failing any 'good alternatives' I'll document its usage.


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


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