Re: [OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)

2019-11-18 Thread Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
 I didn't check all those tags, but that's probably how it should be done 
indeed technically, as Lionel said. Drawing 4 parking spaces is much easier. 
And easier to understand for less experienced mappers. Which is also a good 
argument, IMHO. We don't want to create a database which is too difficult to 
understand for new mappers.On the other hand: if we just say that the wiki is 
not that good and everything can be interpreted loosely, where will we end up 
then?
Regards,
StijnRR

Op dinsdag 5 november 2019 11:13:57 CET schreef Marc Gemis 
:  
 
 so for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tyzRIji1MXSDUcxAxoxFoQ (the
spot from the previous mail)

parking:lane:both=marked
parking:lane:left:type=on_kerb  (*)
parking:lane:right:type=half_on_kerb (*)
parking:lane:right:capacity=2
parking:lane:left:capacity=2
parking:condition:both=free

(*) perhaps left and right has to be switched here.

Should I somehow tag the fact that only cars can park there (and no
long vans as in the picture, nor trucks) ?

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and 
> using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication 
> for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these : 
> https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233  with Roeselare as a 
> somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing 
> parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed, 
> the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^
>
> Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual 
> space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show 
> the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-)
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>>
>> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m=
>> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking
>> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in
>> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end.
>>
>> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same?
>>
>> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema
>> for such situations.
>>
>> m.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>> >
>> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" 
>> > but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway 
>> > itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside 
>> > parking with the parking:lane tag on the street.
>> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without 
>> > amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the 
>> > "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for 
>> > complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is 
>> > linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it 
>> > is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^
>> >
>> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel
>> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van
>> >> parkeerterrein) is.
>> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat
>> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de
>> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ?
>> >>
>> >> m.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
  ___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Re: [OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)

2019-11-05 Thread Marc Gemis
so for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tyzRIji1MXSDUcxAxoxFoQ (the
spot from the previous mail)

parking:lane:both=marked
parking:lane:left:type=on_kerb  (*)
parking:lane:right:type=half_on_kerb (*)
parking:lane:right:capacity=2
parking:lane:left:capacity=2
parking:condition:both=free

(*) perhaps left and right has to be switched here.

Should I somehow tag the fact that only cars can park there (and no
long vans as in the picture, nor trucks) ?

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and 
> using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication 
> for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these : 
> https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233  with Roeselare as a 
> somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing 
> parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed, 
> the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^
>
> Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual 
> space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show 
> the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-)
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>>
>> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m=
>> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking
>> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in
>> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end.
>>
>> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same?
>>
>> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema
>> for such situations.
>>
>> m.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>> >
>> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" 
>> > but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway 
>> > itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside 
>> > parking with the parking:lane tag on the street.
>> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without 
>> > amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the 
>> > "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for 
>> > complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is 
>> > linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it 
>> > is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^
>> >
>> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel
>> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van
>> >> parkeerterrein) is.
>> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat
>> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de
>> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ?
>> >>
>> >> m.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Re: [OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)

2019-11-05 Thread Lionel Giard
Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and
using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication
for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these :
https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233  with Roeselare as
a somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing
parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed,
the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^

Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual
space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show
the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-)

Kind Regards,

Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis  a écrit :

> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m=
> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking
> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in
> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end.
>
> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same?
>
> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema
> for such situations.
>
> m.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard 
> wrote:
> >
> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking"
> but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway
> itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside
> parking with the parking:lane tag on the street.
> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without
> amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the
> "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for
> complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is
> linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it
> is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^
> >
> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
> >>
> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel
> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van
> >> parkeerterrein) is.
> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat
> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de
> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ?
> >>
> >> m.
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


[OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)

2019-11-05 Thread Marc Gemis
So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m=
I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking
lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in
marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end.

While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same?

For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema
for such situations.

m.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" but 
> probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway itself). 
> Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside parking with 
> the parking:lane tag on the street.
> But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without 
> amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the 
> "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for 
> complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is linked 
> to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it is 
> roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^
>
> Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>>
>> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel
>> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van
>> parkeerterrein) is.
>> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat
>> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de
>> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ?
>>
>> m.

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be