On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]> wrote: > Says that amenity=parking should only be used for parking lots, and > not other less formal parking.
Specifically "A parking lot is an area reserved for parking cars, trucks, motorcycles etc. Parking spaces along streets are currently not tagged. Only parking lots of reasonable size are mapped, not every place where a car could be parked." IMHO, that looks like the kind of simple statement that made sense in the earlier days. Now, we should extend the definition to allow those smaller details to be mapped. Some obvious thoughts: - tag roads with "parking=parallel/angle/right-angle" whene there is parking along both sides of a road. - allow very small parking lots to be mapped, and leave it up to the renderer whether or not to display them - improve the range of access controls. I find "access=private" really too simplistic. For example, universities often have parking for the general public/students (paying), staff (permit required), and senior staff (individual allocated spaces). Where I work there are 4 different colour codes, each requiring different permits. - indicate who is providing the parking: a corporation for profit, local government, a business, a park... Anyway, fwiw, I completely disregard the "reasonable size" rule. It sort of makes sense for nodes (ie, don't make an "amenity=parking" node to represent only 6 spots), but not really for areas (the end user will clearly see that it's a tiny car park, and can make their own decisions accordingly). Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
